Search
Search results
Cat's Cradle
Kurt Vonnegut and Benjamin Kunkel
9.3
Rate It
Book
Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle is an irreverent and highly entertaining fantasy about the playful...
Dancing Bees: Karl Von Frisch and the Discovery of the Honeybee Language
Book
We think of bees as being among the busiest workers in the garden, admiring them for their...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated V for Vendetta (2005) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Missed the point... Ponderously
Contains spoilers, click to show
"BOLLOCKS!" This is the standard British insult which is banded about by the stereotypical characters as perceived by our American cousins. Or is this a succinct review of the film? Alan Moore, more famously known for Watchmen, was the original author of the graphic novel of the same name, which was published between 1982 and '85 and then later reprinted in full by DC comics, had his name removed during production. The Brothers Wachowski, of The Matrix fame, a seminal film, penned the adaptation and did so without truly understanding the source.
We ended up with a dull, overly bombastic and ponderous take on a much more subversive novel, with stereotypical fascist villains, shown to have taken power by releasing a virus upon the country's population, rather than the comic's thesis on the apathetic voters, legitimately electing them.
This is Hollywood does Britain, and as usual, they got it wrong. This is a sci-fi fantasy, where the hero/terrorist dons a Guy Fawkes mask and romantically spreads revolution across the country. But Hugo Weaving's ranting, good though he always is, is just boring and overblown. He is a Nutter and not in the good sense. I don't understand what gives him the right to blow up Parliament for us? I think that he's the other side of the same coin; a dictator in his own right. Is this the point? Maybe, but that point is lost when the film is trying to walk the fine line between epic political film-making with an edge, and a major comic book adaptation by the creators of the revolutionary Matrix. Though, the ill-conceived sequels should have served as a warning to us all as to what to expect from this project.
When I first watched this, I thought it was okay, but on repeat viewings it just continues to fall further and further down in my estimation. Boring, contrived, and misconceived. The Brothers Grimm Wachowski need to rethink their strategy and their role in the business and they are in no way, shape or form serious filmmakers. They have a fantastic and they did have a revolutionary view of cinematography, but as for being deep and meaningful writers... more ponderous and self absorbed than anything else.
We ended up with a dull, overly bombastic and ponderous take on a much more subversive novel, with stereotypical fascist villains, shown to have taken power by releasing a virus upon the country's population, rather than the comic's thesis on the apathetic voters, legitimately electing them.
This is Hollywood does Britain, and as usual, they got it wrong. This is a sci-fi fantasy, where the hero/terrorist dons a Guy Fawkes mask and romantically spreads revolution across the country. But Hugo Weaving's ranting, good though he always is, is just boring and overblown. He is a Nutter and not in the good sense. I don't understand what gives him the right to blow up Parliament for us? I think that he's the other side of the same coin; a dictator in his own right. Is this the point? Maybe, but that point is lost when the film is trying to walk the fine line between epic political film-making with an edge, and a major comic book adaptation by the creators of the revolutionary Matrix. Though, the ill-conceived sequels should have served as a warning to us all as to what to expect from this project.
When I first watched this, I thought it was okay, but on repeat viewings it just continues to fall further and further down in my estimation. Boring, contrived, and misconceived. The Brothers Grimm Wachowski need to rethink their strategy and their role in the business and they are in no way, shape or form serious filmmakers. They have a fantastic and they did have a revolutionary view of cinematography, but as for being deep and meaningful writers... more ponderous and self absorbed than anything else.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Poltergeist (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I struggle with my view of this film. Mostly because I want to compare it to the 1982 horror classic it is a remake of. But rather than pick apart how it does or does not compare to the original I realize I must judge this film on its own merit. As such, I feel this film is just…ok. Not bad, not great, just ok.
That isn’t to say this film is not a good time. In fact, It is quite fun. I feel there are more laughs in this film than scares. Fun times indeed. Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt play good spirited parents trying to make the best of their financial burden while moving into a new home. The three kids are the typical modern type. The older teenager concerned with her cell phone, the tech savvy son, Griffin, who seems to be sacred of everything and the “gifted” little daughter, Madison, who is innocent. The film starts lighthearted enough with jokes and everyday family squabbles. But that quickly changes as Madison starts to have conversations with her closet and the television. Yet, the only one who sees these freak events are scardy-cat Griffin, who won’t sleep in his room when there is a squirrel but doesn’t scream for his parents when he notices the electricity doing things it shouldn’t. But I digress.
And here is where the problems of this film arrive. Rather than create its own memorable scenes that sets it apart from the original, it is in such a hurry to give its own take on the classic scenes from the first film. As such, there is no real sense of rhythm to the pacing of this film that is a staple of good horror films with drawn out sense of suspense the help heighten the sense of dread. And so we are left without any real worry for our characters or us as the audience. We have a few jump scares before a long conclusion that feels more like “Classic” made for TV than big budget film.
In the end, we are left with a “popcorn” horror film that is fun but forgettable at best. Fans of the original will be disappointed. Parents who want to take their young teenage kids to their first horror film will appreciate the wholesome family feel.
That isn’t to say this film is not a good time. In fact, It is quite fun. I feel there are more laughs in this film than scares. Fun times indeed. Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt play good spirited parents trying to make the best of their financial burden while moving into a new home. The three kids are the typical modern type. The older teenager concerned with her cell phone, the tech savvy son, Griffin, who seems to be sacred of everything and the “gifted” little daughter, Madison, who is innocent. The film starts lighthearted enough with jokes and everyday family squabbles. But that quickly changes as Madison starts to have conversations with her closet and the television. Yet, the only one who sees these freak events are scardy-cat Griffin, who won’t sleep in his room when there is a squirrel but doesn’t scream for his parents when he notices the electricity doing things it shouldn’t. But I digress.
And here is where the problems of this film arrive. Rather than create its own memorable scenes that sets it apart from the original, it is in such a hurry to give its own take on the classic scenes from the first film. As such, there is no real sense of rhythm to the pacing of this film that is a staple of good horror films with drawn out sense of suspense the help heighten the sense of dread. And so we are left without any real worry for our characters or us as the audience. We have a few jump scares before a long conclusion that feels more like “Classic” made for TV than big budget film.
In the end, we are left with a “popcorn” horror film that is fun but forgettable at best. Fans of the original will be disappointed. Parents who want to take their young teenage kids to their first horror film will appreciate the wholesome family feel.
Under the Big Black Sun: A Personal History of L.A. Punk
John Doe and Tom DeSavia
Book
Under the Big Black Sun explores the nascent Los Angeles punk rock movement and its evolution to...
Niche Hierarchy: Structure, Organization, and Assembly in Natural Systems
Book
This book is the 1982 Thesis of Dr. George Sugihara and represents an early attempt to produce a...
Where is My Mask of an Honest Man?
Book
Where is my Mask of an Honest Man? is a powerful collection of short stories set in and around...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
This one is pretty straightforward - The Thing (2011) is an ok film that is completely dwarfed by The Thing (1982) - honestly, fuck knows why it doesn't have a different title.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
Revista Semana
News and Magazines & Newspapers
App
La revista SEMANA es la publicación semanal de análisis y opinión más importante de Colombia. Se...
