Search
Search results
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Incinerate in Books
Feb 4, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
Motives and trust are put to question in the short book Incinerate by R. L. Green. However, it is not just the trust of others that is questioned but trust in oneself when emotions are involved.
Ted was raised by his Uncle Will who is, unfortunately, laying in the ICU on life support. While he is not bad off, Ted is very money conscious and is fairly sure he is his Uncle’s heir but has yet to see a copy of the will. He fears that this situation is going to bring distant relatives, especially those on his dad’s side who ran off when he was a baby, out of the woodwork looking for money. He is not completely wrong. His half-sister, Tamsyn, decides to take this opportunity to connect with family. Much to Ted’s surprise and suspicion Tam shows up in a wheelchair with a traveling companion tagging along by the name of Jazz.
Although Jazz comes off as harsh and cold towards Ted to begin with it appears this is only because she is trying to look out for Tam. After a little bit, Ted and Jazz begin to build a relationship or so Ted thinks, while Tam and Ben, Ted’s best friend seem to hit it off as well. Unfortunately, there is more to Jazz than meets the eye as Ted soon finds out. Ted and Ben make it their goal to help Tam get out of Tazz’s manipulative clutches, but it proves difficult. Ted must keep his feelings for Jazz from interfering with the plan yet keep Jazz from knowing he is aware of the truth. Jazz, however, doesn't want to give up her grip on Tam that easily and is willing to go to extreme lengths to keep ahold of her.
I enjoyed Ted’s personality quite a bit. He is questioning and careful of new people and situations until he understands what is going on. Once he understands, Ted seems to have very little trouble deciding to take sides, even if it means he has to fight himself in the process. I was unhappy with the ending of this book. It was a cliffhanger (which I have no problem with) but it just left way too much hanging. The situation with Uncle Will is never resolved, though it's not hard to guess what happened to him, but the will in another unanswered factor. Mor importantly even though there are plans to go ahead and start the business nothing is said about how it works out. I am also extremely interested to know if Jazz ever comes back and if the accident she had was an accident. Then there is also the fact that Ted said “hey” way too much and at times when it felt wrong.
This book deals with tough subjects best suited for adult and high school students. Subjects include rape, manipulation, sex, and death. Other than that the writing style itself is not that difficult. I would also classify this book as a drama from those that are interested. I rate this book 2 out of 4. It is a quick read for those that do not have a lot of free time. While the book itself lacks depth the characters seem to have quite a bit to them. For everything that I find fault for in this book, it is balanced with a positive aspect as well. This might not be a book that I would highly recommend, yet I would not discourage anyone from giving it a shot.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com
https://facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
Ted was raised by his Uncle Will who is, unfortunately, laying in the ICU on life support. While he is not bad off, Ted is very money conscious and is fairly sure he is his Uncle’s heir but has yet to see a copy of the will. He fears that this situation is going to bring distant relatives, especially those on his dad’s side who ran off when he was a baby, out of the woodwork looking for money. He is not completely wrong. His half-sister, Tamsyn, decides to take this opportunity to connect with family. Much to Ted’s surprise and suspicion Tam shows up in a wheelchair with a traveling companion tagging along by the name of Jazz.
Although Jazz comes off as harsh and cold towards Ted to begin with it appears this is only because she is trying to look out for Tam. After a little bit, Ted and Jazz begin to build a relationship or so Ted thinks, while Tam and Ben, Ted’s best friend seem to hit it off as well. Unfortunately, there is more to Jazz than meets the eye as Ted soon finds out. Ted and Ben make it their goal to help Tam get out of Tazz’s manipulative clutches, but it proves difficult. Ted must keep his feelings for Jazz from interfering with the plan yet keep Jazz from knowing he is aware of the truth. Jazz, however, doesn't want to give up her grip on Tam that easily and is willing to go to extreme lengths to keep ahold of her.
I enjoyed Ted’s personality quite a bit. He is questioning and careful of new people and situations until he understands what is going on. Once he understands, Ted seems to have very little trouble deciding to take sides, even if it means he has to fight himself in the process. I was unhappy with the ending of this book. It was a cliffhanger (which I have no problem with) but it just left way too much hanging. The situation with Uncle Will is never resolved, though it's not hard to guess what happened to him, but the will in another unanswered factor. Mor importantly even though there are plans to go ahead and start the business nothing is said about how it works out. I am also extremely interested to know if Jazz ever comes back and if the accident she had was an accident. Then there is also the fact that Ted said “hey” way too much and at times when it felt wrong.
This book deals with tough subjects best suited for adult and high school students. Subjects include rape, manipulation, sex, and death. Other than that the writing style itself is not that difficult. I would also classify this book as a drama from those that are interested. I rate this book 2 out of 4. It is a quick read for those that do not have a lot of free time. While the book itself lacks depth the characters seem to have quite a bit to them. For everything that I find fault for in this book, it is balanced with a positive aspect as well. This might not be a book that I would highly recommend, yet I would not discourage anyone from giving it a shot.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com
https://facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
https://smashbomb.com/nightreader
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Final Notice: A Political Thriller in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
Final Notice by Van Flesher was a very conflicting book for me. I was excited to read this book after I read over the description but found myself to be extremely disappointed. The concept was good but the way the book was written completely lost my interest. I debated a few different times about putting the book down but felt that I owed it to the author to give the book a chance. That being said, just because I did not like it does not mean that other readers would not find it enjoyable.
A company creates a watch called the VT2 and it can monitor a person's health with surprising accuracy. It also has the capability of giving a person a Final Notice when it detect a change that will ultimately lead to death. At the same time the NRA started offering a discount to senior citizens to buy guns in order to defend themselves in their families. On top of these two events, many states are being pushed to have loser laws that will make it easier for people to get guns. These three factors together line up to create a series of horrible events.
The Final Notice feature was intended to give people a chance to get their affairs in order. However, for some once they get their notice they realize with having nothing to lose they can get revenge on people who have wronged them in the past. Some seniors lash out at others, specifically younger people who insulted them in some way. Other people go after political figures that they do not agree with. People who work for the company that created VT2 even joke about how if they knew they were going to die they had a list of people that they would try to take with them. The company ends up working with the FBI and a journalist to offset the negative impact of the VT2 and market it to the public in a positive light.
Many books did not include specifics about religion but that's one does. I found that to be a nice change as it made some of the characters feel more authentic. It also tackled some hard issues, not just the gun laws but also refugees and immigration focusing on those from Syria. With how anti-gun and anti-NRA this book is I was surprised at how casually other issues are mentioned. I would think topic such as underage drinking, fake IDs, and teen pregnancy would also be shown in a more negative light and not just as a passing memory. There were also a few attempt at humor towards the end of the book that just felt weird, in fact I am not even completely sure if it was supposed to be humor. The author says " the author feel sorry..." and " the author was tempted..." and as these are the only time this writing style is used it feels out of place. Morals are also called into question a three different times over the course of this book. It makes the reader question just because you can make money off of something and it is legal does that automatically make it alright?
The target readers for this book would be adult to our supporters of gun control. High school teachers might find this book interesting to teach with topics for group discussion by the students. Also people who are against the NRA in general would probably find this books topics to be enjoyable. After much the bay I have decided to give this book a 2 out of 4. Originally, I was only going to give the book a 1 but the concept of the watch is too interesting. Many chapters or paragraph felt repetitive of previous statements and I think that was largely what turned me away from this book.
A company creates a watch called the VT2 and it can monitor a person's health with surprising accuracy. It also has the capability of giving a person a Final Notice when it detect a change that will ultimately lead to death. At the same time the NRA started offering a discount to senior citizens to buy guns in order to defend themselves in their families. On top of these two events, many states are being pushed to have loser laws that will make it easier for people to get guns. These three factors together line up to create a series of horrible events.
The Final Notice feature was intended to give people a chance to get their affairs in order. However, for some once they get their notice they realize with having nothing to lose they can get revenge on people who have wronged them in the past. Some seniors lash out at others, specifically younger people who insulted them in some way. Other people go after political figures that they do not agree with. People who work for the company that created VT2 even joke about how if they knew they were going to die they had a list of people that they would try to take with them. The company ends up working with the FBI and a journalist to offset the negative impact of the VT2 and market it to the public in a positive light.
Many books did not include specifics about religion but that's one does. I found that to be a nice change as it made some of the characters feel more authentic. It also tackled some hard issues, not just the gun laws but also refugees and immigration focusing on those from Syria. With how anti-gun and anti-NRA this book is I was surprised at how casually other issues are mentioned. I would think topic such as underage drinking, fake IDs, and teen pregnancy would also be shown in a more negative light and not just as a passing memory. There were also a few attempt at humor towards the end of the book that just felt weird, in fact I am not even completely sure if it was supposed to be humor. The author says " the author feel sorry..." and " the author was tempted..." and as these are the only time this writing style is used it feels out of place. Morals are also called into question a three different times over the course of this book. It makes the reader question just because you can make money off of something and it is legal does that automatically make it alright?
The target readers for this book would be adult to our supporters of gun control. High school teachers might find this book interesting to teach with topics for group discussion by the students. Also people who are against the NRA in general would probably find this books topics to be enjoyable. After much the bay I have decided to give this book a 2 out of 4. Originally, I was only going to give the book a 1 but the concept of the watch is too interesting. Many chapters or paragraph felt repetitive of previous statements and I think that was largely what turned me away from this book.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Beasts of No Nation (2015) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 9, 2020)
As I may have mentioned, a lot of my film viewing over the last wee while has been part of a project that hopes to be called 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential films of the new millennium – which utilises the Decinemal system you will see at the bottom of each of my reviews. It aims to judge each film objectively with a score out of 10 over 10 categories, to give an overall rating out of 100.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Sweeping up a few older films that I wanted to see but missed at the cinema in the last few years. My current IMDb watch list sits at 488, and, unlike this movie, never seems to shrink! There is a lot to keep up with. Bad reviews have kept me away from Alexander Payne’s Downsizing until now. I have to say, without the burden of expectation, it is a lot better than I thought it would be.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated 3 Idiots (2009) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
So, I am writing a coffee table book that selects the 200 top films of 2000 – 2019. Called, predictably, 21st Century Cinema: 200 Unmissable films. It uses a system of rating I devised called The Decinemal, which takes the ten categories by which a film can be rated (Direction, Script, Design, Lead Acting, Support Acting, Music, Photography, Critical Acclaim, Watchability and X-Factor) and scores them out of 10, to give an overall score out of 100. Whilst not foolproof, it does give a remarkable working basis for comparing movies of different genres, and the ratings often bear a striking relation to the democratic system used by IMDb – a film scoring 7.2 on that website might be a 75 decinemal, for example, and that feels like that validates its use.
It has been a very fun, if time consuming, project. The difficulty is keeping up with new releases every year, and trying to catch some of the more obscure foreign language films out there that get high scores on IMDb. One such film was 3 Idiots, to date the highest rated Bollywood film on that website, with a score of 8.5; which is high! Very high! So I have to watch it and find out for myself.
Now, Bollywood is not me for, barring the odd amusement of how bizarre they can be. I find the musical interludes often grating and incongruous, and the melodramatic acting styles something that the cinema of most other countries outgrew decades ago. So it is hard for me to be objective about it. On the whole they just don’t compete on any level with American, European or, well, any other country’s output. In short, I would never normally watch one at all.
Surprisingly, I found 3 Idiots, although clownish and OTT, quite entertaining from the start. I even found one or two of the obligatory musical numbers very catchy and a lot of fun! Also, lead actor Aamir Khan, one of India’s biggest stars, was very charming and watchable. Of course, it is colourful, loud and has a childish sensibility, but some moments made me genuinely laugh. The main problem actually came from it being padded out to almost 2 and 1/2 hours, which was far too long for comfort. If it had been more economical I may have even been able to say it was worth watching.
Sadly, it is the moments of cultural difference and pure silliness that dragged it down. Despite its positive points, ultimately it is a mess, and to compare it on the standard I judge all films I see I have to be fair and not patronise it. Certainly in terms of the Bollywood fare I have seen bits of over the years, I can see why it is so well thought of. I can also see how films like this gain such a high rating, because it is the native audience it was made for that cast the votes. Which is fair enough, but does give it an unreasonably high score.
I think if more people watched it and rated it, it would balance out at a 6.5, and it probably deserves that for sheer entertainment value. I have certainly seen many worse films! Applying The Decinemal objectively, however, it comes out like this: Direction 4, Script 5, Design 6, Lead Acting 6, Support acting 4, Music 5, Photography 6, Critical Acclaim 7, Wachability 5, x-Factor 6. Added up that gives it a Decinemal of 54 – a far cry from the 74 it would have needed to make my top 200. And I stand by that score, as the level of likelihood of everyone’s enjoyment of it.
To an extent it discourages me from watching anything from this part of the world again, but I can’t say I didn’t appreciate why it was such a big hit. Interesting.
It has been a very fun, if time consuming, project. The difficulty is keeping up with new releases every year, and trying to catch some of the more obscure foreign language films out there that get high scores on IMDb. One such film was 3 Idiots, to date the highest rated Bollywood film on that website, with a score of 8.5; which is high! Very high! So I have to watch it and find out for myself.
Now, Bollywood is not me for, barring the odd amusement of how bizarre they can be. I find the musical interludes often grating and incongruous, and the melodramatic acting styles something that the cinema of most other countries outgrew decades ago. So it is hard for me to be objective about it. On the whole they just don’t compete on any level with American, European or, well, any other country’s output. In short, I would never normally watch one at all.
Surprisingly, I found 3 Idiots, although clownish and OTT, quite entertaining from the start. I even found one or two of the obligatory musical numbers very catchy and a lot of fun! Also, lead actor Aamir Khan, one of India’s biggest stars, was very charming and watchable. Of course, it is colourful, loud and has a childish sensibility, but some moments made me genuinely laugh. The main problem actually came from it being padded out to almost 2 and 1/2 hours, which was far too long for comfort. If it had been more economical I may have even been able to say it was worth watching.
Sadly, it is the moments of cultural difference and pure silliness that dragged it down. Despite its positive points, ultimately it is a mess, and to compare it on the standard I judge all films I see I have to be fair and not patronise it. Certainly in terms of the Bollywood fare I have seen bits of over the years, I can see why it is so well thought of. I can also see how films like this gain such a high rating, because it is the native audience it was made for that cast the votes. Which is fair enough, but does give it an unreasonably high score.
I think if more people watched it and rated it, it would balance out at a 6.5, and it probably deserves that for sheer entertainment value. I have certainly seen many worse films! Applying The Decinemal objectively, however, it comes out like this: Direction 4, Script 5, Design 6, Lead Acting 6, Support acting 4, Music 5, Photography 6, Critical Acclaim 7, Wachability 5, x-Factor 6. Added up that gives it a Decinemal of 54 – a far cry from the 74 it would have needed to make my top 200. And I stand by that score, as the level of likelihood of everyone’s enjoyment of it.
To an extent it discourages me from watching anything from this part of the world again, but I can’t say I didn’t appreciate why it was such a big hit. Interesting.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Seven Psychopaths (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Unfamiliar with writer and director Martin McDonagh’s previous gangster film In Burges, I was not exactly sure what I was getting into when watching Seven Psychopaths. I had seen a few trailers and was looking forward to what looked like a quirky new movie that I hoped delivered at least a few solid one-liners but was not expecting much more. Well, I am delighted to say that McDonagh delivers a fantastic self-referential crime caper that is one part Pulp Fiction and one part a meta episode of NBC’s TV show Community.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
This self-aware film has a story that is hilarious in its antics and creates a world where these characters come to life. Colin Farrell (In Burges) plays Marty, an alcoholic film writer suffering from a terrible case of writer’s block. He has the title for his next film Seven Psychopaths but little more. However in spite of what the title suggest, Marty does not want his film to be violent. He wants his main psychopath to love more than kill, whch is what appears to be giving Marty the writing block in the first place. Enter Marty’s good friend Bill played by Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2). In an effort to help Marty find inspiration for the characters in his story, Billy encourages and informs Marty of various psychopathic stories he is aware of. He even goes so far as putting a “psycho story” want ad in the paper, asking psycho’s to come to Marty’s house and tell their story. This causes Marty to spend the length of the film trying to create the characters for his story from the crazy interactions going on around him.
While based on “real life” people, these characters are introduced through individual dramatized stories about them complete with glorified over the top cartoon like violence that hits home as visual comedy. From the Quaker psychopath who stalks his daughter’s killer, to the psychopath who spent his youth killing other psycho killers, to the Vietnamese Psychopath who just seems crazy for most of the movie. These stories give us a glimpse into the psychopathic mind of Marty and friends and help create a visual world where anything seems possible from these characters.
In addition to these characters, Marty has to deal with a “real life” shih-tzu-loving psycho gangster Charlie played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers), when Billy and friend Hans (Christopher Walken, Poolhall Junkies) “accidently” kidnap Charlie’s dog in their regular dog-napping scheme to collect a found reward from owners. This interaction with Charlie helps Marty, Billy and Hans figure out the story to Seven Psychopaths that borrows from their own in-film “real life” experience.
The ensemble cast all hit their mark in his film. Each shows us enough of their characters to fit their quirky stereotypes but gives us something memorable about each. No more is this shown through Rockwell’s performance of Billy that builds on his lunacy throughout the film until his shining moment, a scene where he is telling Marty how he would finish his story. In addition, Walken delivers his best performance in years with his traditional over the top serious but hysterical Walken Style. Any fan of his should not miss this film.
Seven Psychopaths turned out to be an enjoyable experience and thrill ride from start to finish. The ensemble cast breathes life into the crazy characters that help move along the action. It is a film that is self-aware and does not take its self too seriously. As such, we are delivered an eccentric but entertaining film experience that anyone looking for a change of pace should not miss.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Rum Diary (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
For those unfamiliar with Hunter S. Thompson’s work (as I am), you may not recognize that this movie is based on his book of the same title, first published in 1998. Hunter S. Thompson is the same author who gave us the novel for which the film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was based on.
The Rum Diary follows Paul Kemp (played by Johnny Depp), a failed novelist turn journalist, who finds himself at a critical turning point in his life. Having written two and a half novels that were never published, he was having trouble finding his voice, in that he needed to find a way to “write like him” as Paul put it himself. So he decides to do some freelance writing for a small publication located in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1960.
The movie opens with Kemp waking up in a hotel, and you can immediately, and clearly, see that he partakes in certain pleasures of life. After reporting to work at San Juan Star, Kemp meets Sala (played by Michael Rispoli), the photographer for the Star who quickly becomes his cohort. The editor-in-chief of the San Juan Star, Lotterman (played by Richard Jenkins) indicates to Kemp that the publication is only a few months away from being closed down, and that there really isn’t much to look forward to. He assigns Kemp to do some fluff pieces and the horoscope section of the paper.
Kemp is not content with this as he is looking at this experience as a way to put his career back on track. Over the next few days, during his adventures with Sala, he comes across a few different story ideas that are immediately shot down by Lotterman, as they emphasize the things that are wrong with San Juan, and Lotterman feels that the focus should be on the good things (like bowling alleys).
During one of his nights of boozing, he meets Chenault (played by Amber Heard). She’s aloof, mysterious, and of course… Kemp falls immediately in love with her. She just happens to be the girlfriend of Sanderson (played by Aaron Eckhart). Sanderson immediately recognizes the talents that Kemp has and begins recruiting him for a real estate scam. The idea is to get a foothold and build a new hotel on a private island that is used for United States military testing, but will soon be relinquished from that purpose. Sanderson and a group of investors want Kemp to put a brilliant positive spin on the hotel investment so that the public opinion, and that of those in a position to block the development, is a positive one.
Things begin to unravel as Kemp and Sala’s shenanigans keep getting them into trouble, culminating in a heated night where Kemp, Sala, Chenault and Sanderson end up at a bar during the St. Thomas Carnival.
The Rum Diary was highly entertaining with a great supporting cast. Giovani Ribisi provides an excellent distraction from some of the more serious events of the movie as he appears every now and then as Moburg, another reporter for the San Juan Star. The movie played like a great alcohol-induced, drug-fueled adventures of a journalist in the 1960s. Definitely some quirky moments, and you will find yourself laughing at many of Kemp and Sala’s exploits.
My only gripe with the movie is how it ended. The build up to Kemp printing the story and putting it out there leaves you wanting more. While I don’t think the film will reach the same cult-status that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas will, it is definitely entertaining (all the way until the end). It is a good nod to Thompson and fans of his books and movie adaptations are sure to enjoy.
The Rum Diary follows Paul Kemp (played by Johnny Depp), a failed novelist turn journalist, who finds himself at a critical turning point in his life. Having written two and a half novels that were never published, he was having trouble finding his voice, in that he needed to find a way to “write like him” as Paul put it himself. So he decides to do some freelance writing for a small publication located in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1960.
The movie opens with Kemp waking up in a hotel, and you can immediately, and clearly, see that he partakes in certain pleasures of life. After reporting to work at San Juan Star, Kemp meets Sala (played by Michael Rispoli), the photographer for the Star who quickly becomes his cohort. The editor-in-chief of the San Juan Star, Lotterman (played by Richard Jenkins) indicates to Kemp that the publication is only a few months away from being closed down, and that there really isn’t much to look forward to. He assigns Kemp to do some fluff pieces and the horoscope section of the paper.
Kemp is not content with this as he is looking at this experience as a way to put his career back on track. Over the next few days, during his adventures with Sala, he comes across a few different story ideas that are immediately shot down by Lotterman, as they emphasize the things that are wrong with San Juan, and Lotterman feels that the focus should be on the good things (like bowling alleys).
During one of his nights of boozing, he meets Chenault (played by Amber Heard). She’s aloof, mysterious, and of course… Kemp falls immediately in love with her. She just happens to be the girlfriend of Sanderson (played by Aaron Eckhart). Sanderson immediately recognizes the talents that Kemp has and begins recruiting him for a real estate scam. The idea is to get a foothold and build a new hotel on a private island that is used for United States military testing, but will soon be relinquished from that purpose. Sanderson and a group of investors want Kemp to put a brilliant positive spin on the hotel investment so that the public opinion, and that of those in a position to block the development, is a positive one.
Things begin to unravel as Kemp and Sala’s shenanigans keep getting them into trouble, culminating in a heated night where Kemp, Sala, Chenault and Sanderson end up at a bar during the St. Thomas Carnival.
The Rum Diary was highly entertaining with a great supporting cast. Giovani Ribisi provides an excellent distraction from some of the more serious events of the movie as he appears every now and then as Moburg, another reporter for the San Juan Star. The movie played like a great alcohol-induced, drug-fueled adventures of a journalist in the 1960s. Definitely some quirky moments, and you will find yourself laughing at many of Kemp and Sala’s exploits.
My only gripe with the movie is how it ended. The build up to Kemp printing the story and putting it out there leaves you wanting more. While I don’t think the film will reach the same cult-status that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas will, it is definitely entertaining (all the way until the end). It is a good nod to Thompson and fans of his books and movie adaptations are sure to enjoy.
James Bagshaw recommended track Femme d'argent, La (with Air France) by Air in Moon Safari by Air in Music (curated)
8.7
Album
Favorite
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Ava (2020) in Movies
Jan 5, 2021
Dull and unoriginal
Ava is a 2020 spy action thriller directed by Tate Taylor and starring Jessica Chastain. It follows Ava (Chastain), an assassin working for a shadowy organisation who soon becomes hunted by her own, led by the mysterious Simon (Colin Farrell). Between missions and death threats, Ava is aided by her handler Duke (John Malkovich) while she attempts to resolve some long held family issues with her mother (Geena Davis), sister (Jess Weixler) and ex (Common).
From the outset, Ava appears to be like your typical female assassin style film – a loud, stylish electro/techno soundtrack overlaying an assassination featuring wigs, stylish clothes and cars and every other spy cliché you’d come to expect from a film like this. The only truly original and enjoyable thing in this opening scene is Ioan Gruffudd’s shady businessman, who looks like he’s having a whale of a time relishing playing a bad guy for a change. However what you don’t see coming with Ava after this initial scene is that instead of being a full on action film, it turns into a family melodrama with a few fight scenes thrown in almost as an afterthought.
Ava is a characterless film full of clichés, and lacking in any personality whatsoever. The spy and action elements, when we eventually see them that is, are entirely unoriginal and have been done so much better in any other spy film you could think of. The fight scenes are surprisingly dull and the camera work only results in highlighting how staged and choreographed the scenes are, they just don’t look real. It isn’t helped by all of the family drama either, with a large number of conversational dialogue scenes taking over the majority of the short but feels so long run time. It wouldn’t be too bad if these were scripted well but I’m afraid like everything else in this film, the script is lacklustre and clichéd.
Character development is poor and banal too, with the majority of the spy related characters lacking in any form of personality or likability. Ava herself is the worst, she reminded me of a personality-less robot who has no depth or emotions, no matter how much the opening credits scene or family interactions try to tell us otherwise. This film has really done it’s stellar cast a huge injustice and gives them absolutely nothing to work with.
Even the plot suffers from a complete absence of originality and seems to have been kept as vague as possible, whether on purpose or because the writers just couldn’t be bothered I’m not sure. The shadowy organisation that Ava, Duke and Simon all work for is never identified or discussed in any real detail. All we learn about them is that they employ assassins to make hits on possibly shady people, with no further elaboration on why or what these people have done wrong, which Ava herself seems fascinated about as we see her questioning her victims as they’re about to die. I’m all for creating a mysterious atmosphere giving away just enough to keep us intrigued, but I’m afraid this doesn’t work for Ava as it just comes across as lazy and complacent with sloppy writing.
I couldn’t help but compare Ava to Atomic Blonde, another female led assassin film that is worlds apart from this. Ava is lacking in everything that made Atomic Blonde - a fun watch, with style, substance and some brutal (but well executed) fight scenes - and I really wish Ava had followed the same formula as at least this would have made it watchable. As it is, it’s a completely dull and clichéd spy film lacking in pretty much everything.
From the outset, Ava appears to be like your typical female assassin style film – a loud, stylish electro/techno soundtrack overlaying an assassination featuring wigs, stylish clothes and cars and every other spy cliché you’d come to expect from a film like this. The only truly original and enjoyable thing in this opening scene is Ioan Gruffudd’s shady businessman, who looks like he’s having a whale of a time relishing playing a bad guy for a change. However what you don’t see coming with Ava after this initial scene is that instead of being a full on action film, it turns into a family melodrama with a few fight scenes thrown in almost as an afterthought.
Ava is a characterless film full of clichés, and lacking in any personality whatsoever. The spy and action elements, when we eventually see them that is, are entirely unoriginal and have been done so much better in any other spy film you could think of. The fight scenes are surprisingly dull and the camera work only results in highlighting how staged and choreographed the scenes are, they just don’t look real. It isn’t helped by all of the family drama either, with a large number of conversational dialogue scenes taking over the majority of the short but feels so long run time. It wouldn’t be too bad if these were scripted well but I’m afraid like everything else in this film, the script is lacklustre and clichéd.
Character development is poor and banal too, with the majority of the spy related characters lacking in any form of personality or likability. Ava herself is the worst, she reminded me of a personality-less robot who has no depth or emotions, no matter how much the opening credits scene or family interactions try to tell us otherwise. This film has really done it’s stellar cast a huge injustice and gives them absolutely nothing to work with.
Even the plot suffers from a complete absence of originality and seems to have been kept as vague as possible, whether on purpose or because the writers just couldn’t be bothered I’m not sure. The shadowy organisation that Ava, Duke and Simon all work for is never identified or discussed in any real detail. All we learn about them is that they employ assassins to make hits on possibly shady people, with no further elaboration on why or what these people have done wrong, which Ava herself seems fascinated about as we see her questioning her victims as they’re about to die. I’m all for creating a mysterious atmosphere giving away just enough to keep us intrigued, but I’m afraid this doesn’t work for Ava as it just comes across as lazy and complacent with sloppy writing.
I couldn’t help but compare Ava to Atomic Blonde, another female led assassin film that is worlds apart from this. Ava is lacking in everything that made Atomic Blonde - a fun watch, with style, substance and some brutal (but well executed) fight scenes - and I really wish Ava had followed the same formula as at least this would have made it watchable. As it is, it’s a completely dull and clichéd spy film lacking in pretty much everything.
The best Pixar film?
I have recently purchased a ‘100 Movies Bucket List’ scratch off poster, with the intention of finally crossing off all of the classic films I’ve never seen before. However with the current and ongoing COVID lockdowns, now seemed like a perfect time to watch all of the 100 films on this list including those I know and love. These will be watched in no particular order, and will be highly dependent on my mood and film availability. First on my list is Up.
Up (2009) is a Disney/Pixar animation that follows widower Carl, as he, his house and intrepid wilderness explorer Russell go on an adventure to Paradise Falls.
Up is definitely “up” there as one of the best ever Disney/Pixar films, if not THE best. It has all of the hallmarks that you’d come to expect from such a film and they are executed to perfection. From the opening sequence, which is by far one of the most heartwarming and heart-wrenching things you will ever watch (and this is coming from a studio that killed Bambi’s mother). If you’re not bawling your eyes out after the first 15 minutes, there is something seriously wrong with you.
Once we’ve recovered from the opening scenes, we’re introduced to Carl the widower (Ed Asher) and he’s still tugging on the old heart strings as he goes about his life on his own. He’s your typical grouchy old man, in a rather funny and adorable way, and watching his interactions with others is both sad and entertaining to watch. After a rather unfortunate event, Carl takes his house to the skies and it’s here where the film really starts to get going with stowaway Russell, as they arrive in Paradise Falls and encounter mysterious bird of paradise Kevin, Charles Muntz and his dogs.
As soon as Carl sets off on his journey, this becomes a spirited and fun adventure film. There is never a dull moment and is full of wonder, joy and a fair few laughs, as well as a surprising amount of dark tension generated by famous explorer Muntz (Christopher Plummer). For a kids film, Muntz is an unusually threatening figure and the fear of him is only exacerbated by the fact that half of this film is set at a quite a scary height. Even during the fight scene with Carl towards the end of the movie, Muntz is still intimidating despite the very amusing nods to old age that are thrown in.
For me though, the star (and stars) of Up are Dug and Muntz’s pack of dogs. Disney/Pixar have this amazing knack of writing funny sidekick animals, with the majority of laughs coming from simple observations about how these animals behave in real life (something The Secret Life of Pets should have take more notice of). Up so easily works dogs being dogs into the narrative of this story with ease, and talking dogs are just so funny. From the cone of shame to their attitude towards squirrels and tennis balls, and the fact that they refer to Russell as “the small mailman” – this is pure genius and makes me laugh no matter how many times I see it.
Disney/Pixar films fall into two categories: Very Good and Brilliant. Up has what all Disney/Pixar films have – a wonderfully balanced story full of adult and child appropriate laughs and heartwarming emotional ‘feels’, and some top notch animation. But what brings Up into the “Brilliant” category is it is a beautiful tale of love and friendship, with a touching and rather moving message about life. This is a classic tale that is done flawlessly in a way that only Disney/Pixar can.
Note: whilst I love the film, I’m so far not impressed with my poster itself. Scratched it as you would a scratch card and part of the picture has come off (see attached evidence)… best be more careful next time.
Up (2009) is a Disney/Pixar animation that follows widower Carl, as he, his house and intrepid wilderness explorer Russell go on an adventure to Paradise Falls.
Up is definitely “up” there as one of the best ever Disney/Pixar films, if not THE best. It has all of the hallmarks that you’d come to expect from such a film and they are executed to perfection. From the opening sequence, which is by far one of the most heartwarming and heart-wrenching things you will ever watch (and this is coming from a studio that killed Bambi’s mother). If you’re not bawling your eyes out after the first 15 minutes, there is something seriously wrong with you.
Once we’ve recovered from the opening scenes, we’re introduced to Carl the widower (Ed Asher) and he’s still tugging on the old heart strings as he goes about his life on his own. He’s your typical grouchy old man, in a rather funny and adorable way, and watching his interactions with others is both sad and entertaining to watch. After a rather unfortunate event, Carl takes his house to the skies and it’s here where the film really starts to get going with stowaway Russell, as they arrive in Paradise Falls and encounter mysterious bird of paradise Kevin, Charles Muntz and his dogs.
As soon as Carl sets off on his journey, this becomes a spirited and fun adventure film. There is never a dull moment and is full of wonder, joy and a fair few laughs, as well as a surprising amount of dark tension generated by famous explorer Muntz (Christopher Plummer). For a kids film, Muntz is an unusually threatening figure and the fear of him is only exacerbated by the fact that half of this film is set at a quite a scary height. Even during the fight scene with Carl towards the end of the movie, Muntz is still intimidating despite the very amusing nods to old age that are thrown in.
For me though, the star (and stars) of Up are Dug and Muntz’s pack of dogs. Disney/Pixar have this amazing knack of writing funny sidekick animals, with the majority of laughs coming from simple observations about how these animals behave in real life (something The Secret Life of Pets should have take more notice of). Up so easily works dogs being dogs into the narrative of this story with ease, and talking dogs are just so funny. From the cone of shame to their attitude towards squirrels and tennis balls, and the fact that they refer to Russell as “the small mailman” – this is pure genius and makes me laugh no matter how many times I see it.
Disney/Pixar films fall into two categories: Very Good and Brilliant. Up has what all Disney/Pixar films have – a wonderfully balanced story full of adult and child appropriate laughs and heartwarming emotional ‘feels’, and some top notch animation. But what brings Up into the “Brilliant” category is it is a beautiful tale of love and friendship, with a touching and rather moving message about life. This is a classic tale that is done flawlessly in a way that only Disney/Pixar can.
Note: whilst I love the film, I’m so far not impressed with my poster itself. Scratched it as you would a scratch card and part of the picture has come off (see attached evidence)… best be more careful next time.
