Search
Search results
Kaysee Hood (83 KP) rated Landline in Books
Oct 3, 2017
I will be honest when I say I did not take notes for this book as I did the others. I did not write down thoughts or what was going on or doodle like pictures in my book journal like I have done with the previous books so I could write a review. There is a simple reason for this: I was not dazzled by Landline as I have been with Rowell's other books. This does not mean I did not enjoy it, I was not simply not as captured.
Now, there is a certain charm Georgie McCool has. She is a working woman. She is the bread winner. She knows what she wants. She is funny and clever. Most importantly, she is aware of her flaws and is not put off as someone perfect. She is open about her flaws. She points these out about herself. Those with who she is and what is of her body.
That is not what Landline is about however. Well maybe in a way it is as the whole plot is the focus of her choosing her career over Neil where she works with her best friend, who obviously loves her as much as she is hopelessly in love with her husband. This is a certain strain on their relationship. Not to mention she is selfish and has put a lot of the work on Neil to keep the house in order, make meals, and raise the kids while she lives her dream. What we witness is the final straw breaking when she chooses her career over the family once more during Christmas.
Now I will admit I was not into the story the first fourth of the way. I am not one for drama in the way it has presented itself in these pages. I hate soap operas and love triangles. Romance is wonderful, but there is this line I have where it cannot be chaos or something I could turn a chick flick on to get it out of my system. Though this did take a turn with the phone calls.
I will not spoil the magic factor of this books, but what I can say is Rowell does not have in this book as she did in the others. She is quite there in her writing. It is her words. Her style. There is something missing. I cannot tell you as to what it is, but there is something missing. I would say give Landline a chance if you are a fan or if it sparks some sort of interest for you, but it is not a book I am going to put on my shelf.
Now, there is a certain charm Georgie McCool has. She is a working woman. She is the bread winner. She knows what she wants. She is funny and clever. Most importantly, she is aware of her flaws and is not put off as someone perfect. She is open about her flaws. She points these out about herself. Those with who she is and what is of her body.
That is not what Landline is about however. Well maybe in a way it is as the whole plot is the focus of her choosing her career over Neil where she works with her best friend, who obviously loves her as much as she is hopelessly in love with her husband. This is a certain strain on their relationship. Not to mention she is selfish and has put a lot of the work on Neil to keep the house in order, make meals, and raise the kids while she lives her dream. What we witness is the final straw breaking when she chooses her career over the family once more during Christmas.
Now I will admit I was not into the story the first fourth of the way. I am not one for drama in the way it has presented itself in these pages. I hate soap operas and love triangles. Romance is wonderful, but there is this line I have where it cannot be chaos or something I could turn a chick flick on to get it out of my system. Though this did take a turn with the phone calls.
I will not spoil the magic factor of this books, but what I can say is Rowell does not have in this book as she did in the others. She is quite there in her writing. It is her words. Her style. There is something missing. I cannot tell you as to what it is, but there is something missing. I would say give Landline a chance if you are a fan or if it sparks some sort of interest for you, but it is not a book I am going to put on my shelf.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Mad Max (1979) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Decent
Guilty confession: Typically when I watch a "classic" or a film I've really been looking forward to, I go into it expecting to like it. In other words, the film is already ahead of the curve when it comes to my grading scale. It has to do a lot to let me down. I hate to say it, but Mad Max? It let me down. Not in the sense that it was bad, but rather in the sense that I was hoping for more.
Max is a police officer in a post-apocalyptic world where biker gangs rule the road. After his partner is brutally burned by one of the most dangerous gangs, Max decides to retire but a terrible turn of events sucks him right back in.
The film got off to a slow start for me. I was confused by what was happening and why it was happening. It's not a good sign when I have to jump on to Wikipedia to clarify things. Unfortunately things never quite bounced back for me after that. I spent a good majority of the film thinking, "What are the stakes for Max? Why should I care about his character?" You're not really given a ton of insight into who he is and why he's a hero you want to root for. Read to kids in the hospital. Pull a cat out of a tree. Do something! Give me a reason to care. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Despite my issues with the film, Mad Max is carried by a solid performance from Gibson. Visceral rage just oozes from the man as he goes out for his revenge. He's got that look, one we've seen in many films before. A look that says, "I'm crazy and I want you to know it." His passion in the role is a shining spot.
The film also benefits from solid world-building. Though you're only given a small taste, it's all you need to see. The road is what's important, the heartbeat of the film. You witness it in the attention to detail behind the cars (Max's car in the end was dope) and the gangs' constant power struggle over maintaining territory. The road is a wasteland, yet extremely vital for those living in it.
I'm giving Mad Max a 73. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. For a movie to be missing some key components and still get a decent score says a lot. It's kind of like eating at an expensive restaurant: When you see your plate, you're slightly let down because you were hoping for more, but you quickly find that the portion you received was good enough.
Max is a police officer in a post-apocalyptic world where biker gangs rule the road. After his partner is brutally burned by one of the most dangerous gangs, Max decides to retire but a terrible turn of events sucks him right back in.
The film got off to a slow start for me. I was confused by what was happening and why it was happening. It's not a good sign when I have to jump on to Wikipedia to clarify things. Unfortunately things never quite bounced back for me after that. I spent a good majority of the film thinking, "What are the stakes for Max? Why should I care about his character?" You're not really given a ton of insight into who he is and why he's a hero you want to root for. Read to kids in the hospital. Pull a cat out of a tree. Do something! Give me a reason to care. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Despite my issues with the film, Mad Max is carried by a solid performance from Gibson. Visceral rage just oozes from the man as he goes out for his revenge. He's got that look, one we've seen in many films before. A look that says, "I'm crazy and I want you to know it." His passion in the role is a shining spot.
The film also benefits from solid world-building. Though you're only given a small taste, it's all you need to see. The road is what's important, the heartbeat of the film. You witness it in the attention to detail behind the cars (Max's car in the end was dope) and the gangs' constant power struggle over maintaining territory. The road is a wasteland, yet extremely vital for those living in it.
I'm giving Mad Max a 73. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. For a movie to be missing some key components and still get a decent score says a lot. It's kind of like eating at an expensive restaurant: When you see your plate, you're slightly let down because you were hoping for more, but you quickly find that the portion you received was good enough.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Butterfly Effect (2004) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Deeper than it first appears...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Having always being a fan of Time Travel and Science Fiction, I was always keen on seeing this film upon its initial release, seven years ago, now. But for one reason or another, this just didn't happen, leaving me to watch this on TV a couple of years later.
I was left disappointed. This was mainly because the film was very gritty, at times dower and not what I or many would have expected from a film in this genre. But with repeat viewings and finally watching this version, the Director's Cut, with a more downbeat and tragic conclusion, I realised that I was wrong.
Yes, this film does not tick the correct boxes for a film of this time, but that is because it is not playing it safe. It is doing what any great groundbreaking films should do and that is to find the truth of the story and tell it, show it and help the audience engage and feel it, in an uncompromising way.
*** SPOILERS *** The film deals with troubled childhoods of four kids, two of whom grow up to become Ashton Kutcher and Amy Smart. (Not literally, of course!) Kutcher's lead, has the ability to travel back to his own past for brief moments by reading his childhood journals or in some cases, watching home movies or looking at photos.
His intention upon discovering this gift, is to repair some of the damage that these events have cause to the group, who have sustained several traumas and left them in various states of dis-functionality as adults. But, as the metaphor relating to Chaos Theory states, "Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?" Philip Merilees: We witness several distinct changes in then present as a result of his tampering and this often results in more pain, in one way or another.
This is a gripping film, with a true sense of itself, philosophy and needs of the narrative to justify its own dower conclusions, and ultimately, Kutcher's final decisions.
The sound design, cinematography general direction are outstanding here, with power use of all the key elements to give us a naturalistic feel, not dis-similar from something that Steven Spielberg might produce.
The Theatrical Cut was good, but this version is superior, with a new and more appropriate ending more in keeping the with the general tone of the film, this should be a true Sci-Fi classic, in the same league as the likes of "Planet Of The Apes", "The Day The Earth Caught Fire" and in to a lesser extent, this being a more widely accepted addition, "Donnie Darko".
Highly recommended.
I was left disappointed. This was mainly because the film was very gritty, at times dower and not what I or many would have expected from a film in this genre. But with repeat viewings and finally watching this version, the Director's Cut, with a more downbeat and tragic conclusion, I realised that I was wrong.
Yes, this film does not tick the correct boxes for a film of this time, but that is because it is not playing it safe. It is doing what any great groundbreaking films should do and that is to find the truth of the story and tell it, show it and help the audience engage and feel it, in an uncompromising way.
*** SPOILERS *** The film deals with troubled childhoods of four kids, two of whom grow up to become Ashton Kutcher and Amy Smart. (Not literally, of course!) Kutcher's lead, has the ability to travel back to his own past for brief moments by reading his childhood journals or in some cases, watching home movies or looking at photos.
His intention upon discovering this gift, is to repair some of the damage that these events have cause to the group, who have sustained several traumas and left them in various states of dis-functionality as adults. But, as the metaphor relating to Chaos Theory states, "Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?" Philip Merilees: We witness several distinct changes in then present as a result of his tampering and this often results in more pain, in one way or another.
This is a gripping film, with a true sense of itself, philosophy and needs of the narrative to justify its own dower conclusions, and ultimately, Kutcher's final decisions.
The sound design, cinematography general direction are outstanding here, with power use of all the key elements to give us a naturalistic feel, not dis-similar from something that Steven Spielberg might produce.
The Theatrical Cut was good, but this version is superior, with a new and more appropriate ending more in keeping the with the general tone of the film, this should be a true Sci-Fi classic, in the same league as the likes of "Planet Of The Apes", "The Day The Earth Caught Fire" and in to a lesser extent, this being a more widely accepted addition, "Donnie Darko".
Highly recommended.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Good as Gone in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Anna and Tom Whitaker's lives are irrevocably changed the night their thirteen-year-old daughter, Julie, disappears. The only witness to her kidnapping is her ten-year-old sister, Jane, who watches petrified from her closest as a man takes away her sister. The broken parents remain in their home, hoping against hope that someday their daughter will return. And then, amazingly, one night the doorbell rings and there she is: Julie. Now a young woman, with a harrowing tale to tell of abuse and horror, but otherwise unscathed. And just like that, the broken family is whole. But is it? Anna doesn't understand what her daughter is keeping from her, where she disappears when the family thinks she's at therapy. And when a Private Investigator shows up--a former detective who was involved in the early portions of Julie's case, with thoughts that Julie isn't really Julie--Anna is even more confused. She just wants her daughter back, but does she really have her?
This novel hooked me from the beginning, and I tore through it less than two days. It starts out with Julie (or the imposter, but I will say Julie for the sake of this review) arriving home and then we hear from Anna and some of the other characters as the family adjusts to Julie's homecoming. But we also delve into the past, which adds this amazing layer of suspense and intrigue and leaves you slightly befuddled, completely invested, and flipping pages like mad. When the point of view first switched from Anna to Julie early in the novel, I gasped a bit.
Gentry has created a book that is compulsively readable from a thriller standpoint, but also features emotionally damaged characters, struggling to survive after losing Julie for so many years. What I enjoyed so much about this book is that it's not only an excellent thriller, which keeps you guessing and wondering, but a nuanced portrait of a truly fractured family, who is still reeling from Julie's kidnapping. The interactions between Anna and her family is fascinating in itself -- Jane, for instance, has had her entire life basically formed around the disappearance of her sister. You don't always get explicit descriptions of their reactions, but you see it in every interaction and emotional attachment (or lack thereof) the family displays.
Overall, this is a great thriller: a fast-paced read, with a plot that will have you guessing (and gasping) and turning pages long into the night.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!); it is available everywhere as of 7/26.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;
This novel hooked me from the beginning, and I tore through it less than two days. It starts out with Julie (or the imposter, but I will say Julie for the sake of this review) arriving home and then we hear from Anna and some of the other characters as the family adjusts to Julie's homecoming. But we also delve into the past, which adds this amazing layer of suspense and intrigue and leaves you slightly befuddled, completely invested, and flipping pages like mad. When the point of view first switched from Anna to Julie early in the novel, I gasped a bit.
Gentry has created a book that is compulsively readable from a thriller standpoint, but also features emotionally damaged characters, struggling to survive after losing Julie for so many years. What I enjoyed so much about this book is that it's not only an excellent thriller, which keeps you guessing and wondering, but a nuanced portrait of a truly fractured family, who is still reeling from Julie's kidnapping. The interactions between Anna and her family is fascinating in itself -- Jane, for instance, has had her entire life basically formed around the disappearance of her sister. You don't always get explicit descriptions of their reactions, but you see it in every interaction and emotional attachment (or lack thereof) the family displays.
Overall, this is a great thriller: a fast-paced read, with a plot that will have you guessing (and gasping) and turning pages long into the night.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss (thank you!); it is available everywhere as of 7/26.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;
Ross (3284 KP) rated Redemption's Blade: After the War in Books
Jun 15, 2018
Storyline is not engaging (2 more)
Reading the aftermath of events that you have no knowledge of
I'm still not 100% sure there wasn't an earlier book I'm meant to have read
A sequel to a book not written yet (that sounds more interesting)
*Disclosure - I received an advance copy of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review*
Over the last few months I have been lucky to read three new Tchaikovsky books. As this was the first fantasy book of those three (the other two being war sci-fi) I had fingers crossed for a return to the heights of the Shadows of the Apt series. I was sadly disappointed.
The scope of this book is truly epic in every sense. The world we are thrown into has a diverse range of beings, species, cities, religions and beliefs and a rich history. The events follow on from the end of a tyrannical reign of the Kinslayer, a power-mad demi-god who tried to break the spirit of those races he didn't just wipe out. We see the Kinslayer-slayer Celestaine's attempts to do good in the aftermath of this war, and try to make one species whole again. This aim leads her on a journey across the world where we are introduced to a range of new peoples and places. The journey goes on from place to place, the company increasing all the while.
I have real respect for Tchaikovsky trying to do something new - tell the story that follows on from a somewhat typical fantasy tale. Sadly for me, the story that went before sounds so much more interesting and engaging - the besting of a truly despicable being. This story is instead something of an empty, largely pointless journey. The ending leads us to believe someone had been luring people with the promise of magical items, to come to him and ultimately their doom - however, the trail leading to him was not exactly clear and the chances of anyone following it would be minimal (let alone someone following it at exactly the right pace to witness certain key events!). The world-building is epic and yet completely forgettable. I found myself forgetting who people were, why they were doing things and I completely missed one major reveal in the final chapters, only to re-read and find that there pretty much was no reveal.
I am a fan of Tchaikovsky's writing style but for me this book was a struggle to get through. I had no feelings towards any of the characters and couldn't remember or care where they had been or why, or what had happened. Not a worthwhile investment of my time.
Over the last few months I have been lucky to read three new Tchaikovsky books. As this was the first fantasy book of those three (the other two being war sci-fi) I had fingers crossed for a return to the heights of the Shadows of the Apt series. I was sadly disappointed.
The scope of this book is truly epic in every sense. The world we are thrown into has a diverse range of beings, species, cities, religions and beliefs and a rich history. The events follow on from the end of a tyrannical reign of the Kinslayer, a power-mad demi-god who tried to break the spirit of those races he didn't just wipe out. We see the Kinslayer-slayer Celestaine's attempts to do good in the aftermath of this war, and try to make one species whole again. This aim leads her on a journey across the world where we are introduced to a range of new peoples and places. The journey goes on from place to place, the company increasing all the while.
I have real respect for Tchaikovsky trying to do something new - tell the story that follows on from a somewhat typical fantasy tale. Sadly for me, the story that went before sounds so much more interesting and engaging - the besting of a truly despicable being. This story is instead something of an empty, largely pointless journey. The ending leads us to believe someone had been luring people with the promise of magical items, to come to him and ultimately their doom - however, the trail leading to him was not exactly clear and the chances of anyone following it would be minimal (let alone someone following it at exactly the right pace to witness certain key events!). The world-building is epic and yet completely forgettable. I found myself forgetting who people were, why they were doing things and I completely missed one major reveal in the final chapters, only to re-read and find that there pretty much was no reveal.
I am a fan of Tchaikovsky's writing style but for me this book was a struggle to get through. I had no feelings towards any of the characters and couldn't remember or care where they had been or why, or what had happened. Not a worthwhile investment of my time.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Altered Carbon in Books
Jun 28, 2018
Hated it
The world in which this story takes place is very intriguing - nobody ever really dies; everyone is put "on stack" when they die, i.e. their digitised brain is stored electronically, and they can have it put back into a new "sleeve", i.e. a body, when their family pay for it. The details of this were pretty scant originally, but emerged over the first 100 pages or so (though sadly piecemeal in glib, throw-away comments where the detail was taken for granted). The ideas filled me with hope - all prisons were digital (people held on stack in created scenarios), travel across large distances was electronic (if you could afford to have a sleeve waiting for you) etc.
Sadly, none of this was explored very well. There was a very clichéd, basic detective story overlaid on to this world. A billionaire claims he was murdered, but the authorities ruled his death as a suicide. This on the surface (someone being a witness for their own murder!) filled me with excitement for what lay ahead. However this quickly ebbed away as the story changed into a detective (Takeshi Kovacs - one of the most bland, one dimensional characters ever created) wandering around Earth, where he has never been, and annoying drug dealers and pimps.
There then follows a great deal of nonsense sex scenes, utterly drivel narrative (Morgan seems to think he has to take a whole page to describe each new location and has some very obscure turns of phrase - I actually speed-read the last 150 pages out of pure frustration with how long and boring the experience was - everything is contained in the dialogue so I recommend just reading that and skimming any action scenes), sci-fi jargon which means nothing to the reader, and very little plot development. In fact, pretty much the whole plot is outlined, by the perpetrator, in one chapter near the end - the "detective" didn't solve the case, he just worked out someone was involved and they filled in the details for him. Utterly clumsy storytelling.
Some people might enjoy taking a long time to read this, the futuristic setting, the overly-described settings, trying to work out what the sci-fi mumbo jumbo means. I am not one of those people. The world-building was there, but was under-used. The plot was basic and only really relevant in the first and last 50 pages. The characters were all forgettable, one-dimensional and clichéd (so much so that I frequently had to search back to find out who the person referred to was and why I should care).
That Takeshi Kovacs survived and went on to star in two follow-up books was a depressing revelation for me.
Sadly, none of this was explored very well. There was a very clichéd, basic detective story overlaid on to this world. A billionaire claims he was murdered, but the authorities ruled his death as a suicide. This on the surface (someone being a witness for their own murder!) filled me with excitement for what lay ahead. However this quickly ebbed away as the story changed into a detective (Takeshi Kovacs - one of the most bland, one dimensional characters ever created) wandering around Earth, where he has never been, and annoying drug dealers and pimps.
There then follows a great deal of nonsense sex scenes, utterly drivel narrative (Morgan seems to think he has to take a whole page to describe each new location and has some very obscure turns of phrase - I actually speed-read the last 150 pages out of pure frustration with how long and boring the experience was - everything is contained in the dialogue so I recommend just reading that and skimming any action scenes), sci-fi jargon which means nothing to the reader, and very little plot development. In fact, pretty much the whole plot is outlined, by the perpetrator, in one chapter near the end - the "detective" didn't solve the case, he just worked out someone was involved and they filled in the details for him. Utterly clumsy storytelling.
Some people might enjoy taking a long time to read this, the futuristic setting, the overly-described settings, trying to work out what the sci-fi mumbo jumbo means. I am not one of those people. The world-building was there, but was under-used. The plot was basic and only really relevant in the first and last 50 pages. The characters were all forgettable, one-dimensional and clichéd (so much so that I frequently had to search back to find out who the person referred to was and why I should care).
That Takeshi Kovacs survived and went on to star in two follow-up books was a depressing revelation for me.
Aziz Bey Incident: And Other Stories
Book
The writing of Ayfer Tunc is in essence urban, and yet she manages to imbue her characters with a...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Hail To The King Baby
Godzilla: King of The Monsters is a 2019 monster movie directed by Michael Dougherty and written by Dougherty, Zach Shields, and Max Borenstein. It was produced by Legendary Pictures and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. The film was dedicated to the original Godzilla suit performer Haruo Nakajima and executive producer Yoshimitsu Banno. The movie stars Kyle Chandler, Vera Farmiga, Millie Bobby Brown, Ken Watanabe and Zhang Ziyi.
Working to track down and study Titans (giant-God like monsters) for the organization Monarch, Paleobiologist Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) and her daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) witness the birth of a giant larva monster named Mothra. The monster is hostile until Emma uses a device called "Orca", which only Titans can hear, to calm it down until eco-terrorists attack, led by Alan Jonah (Charles Dance) and kidnap both her and her daughter. Monarch scientists and soldiers approach Mark (Kyle Chandler), Emma's ex-husband, to track them down and soon they are headed towards Antarctica, where Jonah intends to free a Titan encased in ice called "Monster Zero".
This movie had classic Godzilla flick written all over it and it did not disappoint. The visual effects were awesome, from the way the monsters looked, to the blasts they utilized and even things like explosions were all top notch. The music was also outstanding, as many classic Godzilla themes made a comeback including Mothra's theme. The action sequences far exceeded those of it's predecessor Godzilla 2014, There was plenty of monster battles to make this a fan favorite for years to come. Now I do have to agree with some of the critics and say that the storyline was a little thin and predictable but that didn't stop the film from being enjoyable. And some critics complained about underdeveloped human characters, but in all honesty, the human characters are not why the fans are going to see this movie. I thought the main cast of characters had enough development, it's just that compared to a normal Godzilla film or even the last one, there were a lot of secondary characters or supporting cast. Which to me personally, made the film feel more full. This movie checked a lot of my boxes for what I've come to expect in a Godzilla/giant monster movie and made me happy when I watched it in theaters. It had its down time in certain parts and slow building scenes or moments where it seemed the audience in consensus chose to use that time to run to the restroom and back. But other than that and some predictable plot points and character actions this movie was great.
Working to track down and study Titans (giant-God like monsters) for the organization Monarch, Paleobiologist Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) and her daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) witness the birth of a giant larva monster named Mothra. The monster is hostile until Emma uses a device called "Orca", which only Titans can hear, to calm it down until eco-terrorists attack, led by Alan Jonah (Charles Dance) and kidnap both her and her daughter. Monarch scientists and soldiers approach Mark (Kyle Chandler), Emma's ex-husband, to track them down and soon they are headed towards Antarctica, where Jonah intends to free a Titan encased in ice called "Monster Zero".
This movie had classic Godzilla flick written all over it and it did not disappoint. The visual effects were awesome, from the way the monsters looked, to the blasts they utilized and even things like explosions were all top notch. The music was also outstanding, as many classic Godzilla themes made a comeback including Mothra's theme. The action sequences far exceeded those of it's predecessor Godzilla 2014, There was plenty of monster battles to make this a fan favorite for years to come. Now I do have to agree with some of the critics and say that the storyline was a little thin and predictable but that didn't stop the film from being enjoyable. And some critics complained about underdeveloped human characters, but in all honesty, the human characters are not why the fans are going to see this movie. I thought the main cast of characters had enough development, it's just that compared to a normal Godzilla film or even the last one, there were a lot of secondary characters or supporting cast. Which to me personally, made the film feel more full. This movie checked a lot of my boxes for what I've come to expect in a Godzilla/giant monster movie and made me happy when I watched it in theaters. It had its down time in certain parts and slow building scenes or moments where it seemed the audience in consensus chose to use that time to run to the restroom and back. But other than that and some predictable plot points and character actions this movie was great.
Illeana Douglas recommended Ride the Pink Horse (1947) in Movies (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lost City of Z (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy) stars as the British Explorer Colonel Percival Fawcett, who disappeared on an expedition in search of an ancient city and civilization in the Amazon. The film centers on the true-life adventure of Col Fawcett and his journey to find evidence of a lost people while engaging audiences in the ego and superiority complex that much of western civilization finds itself.
We are introduced to Fawcett as he is an Army Major who seeks to have some sense of distinction and recognition. Seeking notoriety and a sense of honor, Fawcett accepts the task of mapping out disputed territory between Peru and Brazil at the opening of the 20th century in order to prevent war between the two nations.
In his exploits, he is confronted with the exploitation of the indigenous population, extraction of resources, and an untamed land. Upon subsequent journeys and serving in World War I, he is consumed with the need to find a sense of honor in his duty to his nation. Over the course of the film, we begin to see how invested he is in this struggle to learn more about the people and places that he is exploring, however, there isn’t a true connection made between Hunnam’s portrayal and the audience. At times, I found myself not caring about Fawcett’s contributions or career. I could not get invested in his story or his struggle to find a lost city that he believed existed in the wild. By the end of the film, I wasn’t invested in who Fawcett was, what he set out to accomplish, or even his legacy.
One thing that I did find remarkable was that the film helps to expose much of the anxiety and danger that existed during this period and previous expeditions into the region. Additionally, it gave me an appreciation for the endless heights of the human ego, ambition, and drive. The film allows for a critique to emerge about western interference and exploration of the region and the ethnocentrism held by western nations. Lost City of Z is an expansive visual spectacle. The jungle becomes a living, breathing, creature that audiences will connect with, become fearful of, and appreciate. It is the character that carries the film.
The actors and actresses are the background. This aspect allows for the audience to become absorbed by the surroundings and the environment that the characters find themselves in.
The film is beautifully shot and captivating. The sequences are engaging and give the sense of being transported to a foreign, mysterious land that holds secrets that many of us could never comprehend or witness with our own eyes.
We are introduced to Fawcett as he is an Army Major who seeks to have some sense of distinction and recognition. Seeking notoriety and a sense of honor, Fawcett accepts the task of mapping out disputed territory between Peru and Brazil at the opening of the 20th century in order to prevent war between the two nations.
In his exploits, he is confronted with the exploitation of the indigenous population, extraction of resources, and an untamed land. Upon subsequent journeys and serving in World War I, he is consumed with the need to find a sense of honor in his duty to his nation. Over the course of the film, we begin to see how invested he is in this struggle to learn more about the people and places that he is exploring, however, there isn’t a true connection made between Hunnam’s portrayal and the audience. At times, I found myself not caring about Fawcett’s contributions or career. I could not get invested in his story or his struggle to find a lost city that he believed existed in the wild. By the end of the film, I wasn’t invested in who Fawcett was, what he set out to accomplish, or even his legacy.
One thing that I did find remarkable was that the film helps to expose much of the anxiety and danger that existed during this period and previous expeditions into the region. Additionally, it gave me an appreciation for the endless heights of the human ego, ambition, and drive. The film allows for a critique to emerge about western interference and exploration of the region and the ethnocentrism held by western nations. Lost City of Z is an expansive visual spectacle. The jungle becomes a living, breathing, creature that audiences will connect with, become fearful of, and appreciate. It is the character that carries the film.
The actors and actresses are the background. This aspect allows for the audience to become absorbed by the surroundings and the environment that the characters find themselves in.
The film is beautifully shot and captivating. The sequences are engaging and give the sense of being transported to a foreign, mysterious land that holds secrets that many of us could never comprehend or witness with our own eyes.