Search
Search results
Considering the fact all of the nominees for the 2015-2016 Gateway Award aren't exactly very appealing and I've had quite the bad luck with them... I pretty much decided to take a stab with Ashley Elston's <i>The Rules for Disappearing</i> as my next victim.
In elaboration of that bad luck, <a title="In the Shadow of Blackbirds" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-in-the-shadow-of-blackbirds-by-cat-winters/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">my first one was insanity</a>. I'm scared of reading another book by Cat Winters. <a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-the-5th-wave-by-rick-yancey"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">My second one had a highly annoying character named after a constellation</a>.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/05/dean-what-have-i-done.gif"; border="0" /></div>
And now, my third book has a very materialistic character (completely opposite spectrum from me) whose family is in Witness Protection for the last year and has quite literally changed their names far more times than Zach/Jack in <i>Zach's Lie</i> and <i>Jack's Run</i>. With their eighth move, "Meg," is extremely tired of constantly having to move places, leaving her life behind, and changing her identities – the moves were beginning to tear apart their family. Meg vows to find what landed her and her family in Witness Protection in the first place throughout the book.
I personally liked how the book was formatted. The beginning of each chapter has a "rule for disappearing," possibly concocted by Meg over the year her family has been in Witness Protection, and what happens in the chapter is sort of a reason "why" Meg established the rule in the first place.
For almost half the book there isn't really too much that happens – Meg makes a plan to not settle down with her new life like she did in her past placements, her "diary" gets stolen, and she tries to avoid a boy named Ethan Landry who's a lot smarter than he seems. After accidentally hearing a few conversations her dad has over the phone in the middle of the night, things start to pick up – Meg starts to remember more of what happened in her original life and becomes more determined to get her family out of Witness protection.
Meg is like a clamshell at the very beginning – she's very closed off and she wants to isolate herself from her peers because who cares about making friends when you might be plucked from your current life any moment? It's not until she meets Ethan that she "gives up" on trying to isolate herself and becomes more open with other people. In all honesty, if Ethan didn't make a constant attempt to open up her shell, Meg probably wouldn't have told her story – how her old life was like, why she's really in Witness Protection, and what each of her moves were like compared to her original life.
Elston does drop a hint or two of a sequel near the end of the book, which I'm not exactly too excited for. <i>The Rules for Disappearing</i> felt like a stand-alone rather than a duology, but maybe the sequel will be equally or more interesting.
<blockquote>We force you to sit through the chick flicks so maybe you'll get some idea of how you're supposed to act.</blockquote>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-rules-for-disappearing-by-ashley-elston/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
In elaboration of that bad luck, <a title="In the Shadow of Blackbirds" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-in-the-shadow-of-blackbirds-by-cat-winters/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">my first one was insanity</a>. I'm scared of reading another book by Cat Winters. <a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-the-5th-wave-by-rick-yancey"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">My second one had a highly annoying character named after a constellation</a>.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/05/dean-what-have-i-done.gif"; border="0" /></div>
And now, my third book has a very materialistic character (completely opposite spectrum from me) whose family is in Witness Protection for the last year and has quite literally changed their names far more times than Zach/Jack in <i>Zach's Lie</i> and <i>Jack's Run</i>. With their eighth move, "Meg," is extremely tired of constantly having to move places, leaving her life behind, and changing her identities – the moves were beginning to tear apart their family. Meg vows to find what landed her and her family in Witness Protection in the first place throughout the book.
I personally liked how the book was formatted. The beginning of each chapter has a "rule for disappearing," possibly concocted by Meg over the year her family has been in Witness Protection, and what happens in the chapter is sort of a reason "why" Meg established the rule in the first place.
For almost half the book there isn't really too much that happens – Meg makes a plan to not settle down with her new life like she did in her past placements, her "diary" gets stolen, and she tries to avoid a boy named Ethan Landry who's a lot smarter than he seems. After accidentally hearing a few conversations her dad has over the phone in the middle of the night, things start to pick up – Meg starts to remember more of what happened in her original life and becomes more determined to get her family out of Witness protection.
Meg is like a clamshell at the very beginning – she's very closed off and she wants to isolate herself from her peers because who cares about making friends when you might be plucked from your current life any moment? It's not until she meets Ethan that she "gives up" on trying to isolate herself and becomes more open with other people. In all honesty, if Ethan didn't make a constant attempt to open up her shell, Meg probably wouldn't have told her story – how her old life was like, why she's really in Witness Protection, and what each of her moves were like compared to her original life.
Elston does drop a hint or two of a sequel near the end of the book, which I'm not exactly too excited for. <i>The Rules for Disappearing</i> felt like a stand-alone rather than a duology, but maybe the sequel will be equally or more interesting.
<blockquote>We force you to sit through the chick flicks so maybe you'll get some idea of how you're supposed to act.</blockquote>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-rules-for-disappearing-by-ashley-elston/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Daughter of Isis (Descendants of Isis #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Author in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
The first book in Kelsey Ketch's <em>Descendants of Isis</em> series is a book with very heavy romance.
Of course, I was highly aware of that upon reading the synopsis.
But I'm an absolute sucker for mythology of all kinds (This is why I am highly interested in debut author Heidi Helig's <em>The Girl From Everywhere</em>. I mean, <em>Hawaiian</em>. Saucer eyes RIGHT here! I intend on waiting until the book is published, though.) and I simply couldn't resist myself. So instead of moping about the possibility of a heavy romance, I replaced my "NUUU ROMANCE" hat with my "TOLERABLE ROMANTIC" hat (the caps are intentional), sat back with my tablet (after transferring the review copy from the computer), and just hoped Ketch would take me on an unforgettable journey.
Natti has just moved from London to a small town in California after her Grandmother's death, with her only clue in a necklace she inherited. Since the first day Natti starts at her new school, Seth O'Keefe starts pursuing her in the hopes of seducing her.
Plus, Tolerable Romantic (I'll stop capping my hats now) hat says it's not exactly love at first sight Natti is completely resistant to Seth's attempts at charming her from the beginning, even though she sort of succumbs to his charms eventually. At that point in time, however, I know each of the characters well enough and have a particular fondness for each of them (for the first in a series) that it isn't awkward at all.
Ketch writes the book in two views: Natti's and Seth's. Natti's comparison of British life to American life and big city to a small town is mildly hilarious (we totally do everything backward). Even though she would rather remain in England, she smoothly transitions into her new life after meeting Wanda, Kevin, and Jen and being tucked under their wings.
Also, she has a fire in her I kind of like.
I honestly feel having Seth's view works out in the book's favor; hearing from his point of view makes him a lot more human than he comes out as with the other Sons of Set: someone who worships the Egyptian god Set and spreads chaos in the world on his behalf, hoping to eventually come across a secret from the past. They also sound insane and just want to take over the world one woman at a time.
It basically puts him in an entirely different perspective for readers than simply reading what Natti thinks of him.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kFwoMM-NvD4/VodHIVFyhoI/AAAAAAAAFqQ/y-lTjSgr4j0/s1600/perspective.gif"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2016/01/perspective.gif"; width="320" height="240" border="0" /></a></div>
<em>Daughter of Isis</em> is one of those books where I'll probably keep my Tolerable Romantic hat on for the entire series because the romance between Seth and Natti fits the story really well. The world Kelsey builds in a small town California where nearly everyone is under the thumb of the Sons of Set captivated me by the end of the book I can't wait to see what trials the couple will face in the future of the series.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-daughter-of-isis-by-kelsey-ketc/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
The first book in Kelsey Ketch's <em>Descendants of Isis</em> series is a book with very heavy romance.
Of course, I was highly aware of that upon reading the synopsis.
But I'm an absolute sucker for mythology of all kinds (This is why I am highly interested in debut author Heidi Helig's <em>The Girl From Everywhere</em>. I mean, <em>Hawaiian</em>. Saucer eyes RIGHT here! I intend on waiting until the book is published, though.) and I simply couldn't resist myself. So instead of moping about the possibility of a heavy romance, I replaced my "NUUU ROMANCE" hat with my "TOLERABLE ROMANTIC" hat (the caps are intentional), sat back with my tablet (after transferring the review copy from the computer), and just hoped Ketch would take me on an unforgettable journey.
Natti has just moved from London to a small town in California after her Grandmother's death, with her only clue in a necklace she inherited. Since the first day Natti starts at her new school, Seth O'Keefe starts pursuing her in the hopes of seducing her.
Plus, Tolerable Romantic (I'll stop capping my hats now) hat says it's not exactly love at first sight Natti is completely resistant to Seth's attempts at charming her from the beginning, even though she sort of succumbs to his charms eventually. At that point in time, however, I know each of the characters well enough and have a particular fondness for each of them (for the first in a series) that it isn't awkward at all.
Ketch writes the book in two views: Natti's and Seth's. Natti's comparison of British life to American life and big city to a small town is mildly hilarious (we totally do everything backward). Even though she would rather remain in England, she smoothly transitions into her new life after meeting Wanda, Kevin, and Jen and being tucked under their wings.
Also, she has a fire in her I kind of like.
I honestly feel having Seth's view works out in the book's favor; hearing from his point of view makes him a lot more human than he comes out as with the other Sons of Set: someone who worships the Egyptian god Set and spreads chaos in the world on his behalf, hoping to eventually come across a secret from the past. They also sound insane and just want to take over the world one woman at a time.
It basically puts him in an entirely different perspective for readers than simply reading what Natti thinks of him.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kFwoMM-NvD4/VodHIVFyhoI/AAAAAAAAFqQ/y-lTjSgr4j0/s1600/perspective.gif"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2016/01/perspective.gif"; width="320" height="240" border="0" /></a></div>
<em>Daughter of Isis</em> is one of those books where I'll probably keep my Tolerable Romantic hat on for the entire series because the romance between Seth and Natti fits the story really well. The world Kelsey builds in a small town California where nearly everyone is under the thumb of the Sons of Set captivated me by the end of the book I can't wait to see what trials the couple will face in the future of the series.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-daughter-of-isis-by-kelsey-ketc/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Broken Dolls (Broken Dolls, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<strong><em>Broken Dolls</em> is like a creepy version of <em>Toy Story</em></strong> (I suppose <em>Toy Story</em> could be creepy...) with live, animated dolls created from humans. They're supposed to be unemotional and feel nothing – not pain, not happiness, not loneliness...
For three decades, Ella lived her life as a doll, assisting the Professor in his creations. In those years, she's forgotten about her humanity and seems perfectly happy as a dancing doll until the Professor unveils his latest creation: a goth doll named Lisa.
Here are my thoughts on the Professor: I deem him an ingenious mad scientist. He is absolutely <em>insane</em>, feels guilty about the past, and wants to change the world. I honestly don't know what to say about the guy aside from the fact I actually feel just a tad bit bad for him in the long run.
But as odd as it might be, I enjoyed the aspect of humans being turned into dolls and living a supposedly ideal life with no emotions or feelings and a life controlled by the Professor. I didn't expect Ella to have much of a voice or a personality aside from what she knew during her time as a doll (also more robotic sounding), and it is definitely the case in the early parts of <em>Broken Dolls</em> when Puxty sets up Ella's world in a Toy Story-esque fashion.
Ella's world revolves around the Professor making her a comfy room (lots of pink) in a chest in the attic of his home (that sentence sounds weird). To pass the time away, Ella spends her days locked up in the attic practicing ballet and recording adventures from her imagination into a recorder. The attic comes out a little bland – nothing remotely interesting and Ella's day-to-day actions would have sounded repetitively boring if Puxty didn't bring Lisa and Gabby into the story.
When Ella meets Lisa, however, she doesn't like Lisa; Lisa makes multiple attempts to destroy Ella because of the theory she has about Ella and all the other dolls. Around the same time, Ella meets the Professor's granddaughter, Gabby, a girl who has a virus that will eventually lead her to an inevitable fate. Like many kids, Gabby is adventurous, and she adores and protects Ella from the moment they meet. Unfortunately for Gabby, the Professor also has plans to turn Gabby into a doll-like Ella and prevent her from dying.
In the time Ella meets Lisa and Gabby, she starts to develop feelings and emotions and becomes more curious about her time before she turned into a doll. With the help of Lisa and another doll, she also strives to dig out all of the Professor's secrets to his experiments before Gabby becomes an Ella-sized playmate. But not only does Ella uncovers the Professor's secrets, she uncovers hers as well and Puxty gives us a glimpse into Ella's human life before becoming a doll.
I personally think Ella is better off as a doll compared to being a human. With the brief glimpse of Ella's human life, she starts out extremely happy and becomes really pessimistic later on – I don't know how I would be able to handle human Ella. Since <em>Broken Dolls</em> has a sequel coming out sometime in 2016, I'm really curious how Ella will cope with her doll life as everyone around her knows who she really is and continues on with their lives.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-broken-dolls-by-tyrolin-puxty/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<strong><em>Broken Dolls</em> is like a creepy version of <em>Toy Story</em></strong> (I suppose <em>Toy Story</em> could be creepy...) with live, animated dolls created from humans. They're supposed to be unemotional and feel nothing – not pain, not happiness, not loneliness...
For three decades, Ella lived her life as a doll, assisting the Professor in his creations. In those years, she's forgotten about her humanity and seems perfectly happy as a dancing doll until the Professor unveils his latest creation: a goth doll named Lisa.
Here are my thoughts on the Professor: I deem him an ingenious mad scientist. He is absolutely <em>insane</em>, feels guilty about the past, and wants to change the world. I honestly don't know what to say about the guy aside from the fact I actually feel just a tad bit bad for him in the long run.
But as odd as it might be, I enjoyed the aspect of humans being turned into dolls and living a supposedly ideal life with no emotions or feelings and a life controlled by the Professor. I didn't expect Ella to have much of a voice or a personality aside from what she knew during her time as a doll (also more robotic sounding), and it is definitely the case in the early parts of <em>Broken Dolls</em> when Puxty sets up Ella's world in a Toy Story-esque fashion.
Ella's world revolves around the Professor making her a comfy room (lots of pink) in a chest in the attic of his home (that sentence sounds weird). To pass the time away, Ella spends her days locked up in the attic practicing ballet and recording adventures from her imagination into a recorder. The attic comes out a little bland – nothing remotely interesting and Ella's day-to-day actions would have sounded repetitively boring if Puxty didn't bring Lisa and Gabby into the story.
When Ella meets Lisa, however, she doesn't like Lisa; Lisa makes multiple attempts to destroy Ella because of the theory she has about Ella and all the other dolls. Around the same time, Ella meets the Professor's granddaughter, Gabby, a girl who has a virus that will eventually lead her to an inevitable fate. Like many kids, Gabby is adventurous, and she adores and protects Ella from the moment they meet. Unfortunately for Gabby, the Professor also has plans to turn Gabby into a doll-like Ella and prevent her from dying.
In the time Ella meets Lisa and Gabby, she starts to develop feelings and emotions and becomes more curious about her time before she turned into a doll. With the help of Lisa and another doll, she also strives to dig out all of the Professor's secrets to his experiments before Gabby becomes an Ella-sized playmate. But not only does Ella uncovers the Professor's secrets, she uncovers hers as well and Puxty gives us a glimpse into Ella's human life before becoming a doll.
I personally think Ella is better off as a doll compared to being a human. With the brief glimpse of Ella's human life, she starts out extremely happy and becomes really pessimistic later on – I don't know how I would be able to handle human Ella. Since <em>Broken Dolls</em> has a sequel coming out sometime in 2016, I'm really curious how Ella will cope with her doll life as everyone around her knows who she really is and continues on with their lives.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-broken-dolls-by-tyrolin-puxty/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Ronyell (38 KP) rated Return to Oz (1985) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
The Dark Side of Oz!
Dorothy Gale had just come back from the Land of Oz, but when she tried to tell her aunt and uncle about her adventures in Oz, they thought that Dorothy had gone crazy, so they decided to take her to a doctor that will give her treatment for her insanity. The treatment turns out to be shock therapy and Dorothy, with a little help from a mysterious girl, escapes from the mental hospital and ended up in the land of Oz once again. But, once Dorothy arrives in Oz, she discovers that the Land of Oz has been taken over by the Nome King and that the Scarecrow, who was the King of Oz, has been kidnapped by the Nome King. So, Dorothy along with some help from a pumpkin man named Jack Pumpkinhead, a mechanical robot named Tik-Tok, her hen Billina and a half moose half sofa creature named the Gump try to journey to the Nome King's kingdom to rescue the Scarecrow, while encountering nightmarish creatures such as Princess Mombi and the Wheelers along the way.
Now I have a confession to make. Whenever I talked to people who have seen "Return to Oz" when they were little, many people were terrified of this movie when they were kids. Me however, I wasn't that scared of the movie when I was little and I actually found it to be pretty interesting and I still find it pretty interesting to this very day! This movie has actually turned my expectations on its head as it is a much darker sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" that has caused some controversy among "Oz" fans and yet, it was pulled off extremely well to make it stand out from "The Wizard of Oz." The surprising thing about all this is that this was the most faithful adaptation of L. Frank Baum's "Oz" books in terms of tone, even though "The Wizard of Oz" is hailed as one of the greatest movies of all time. What I really loved about this movie was the fact that it was darker and edgier than "The Wizard of Oz" and the villains in this movie seem genuinely threatening and are actually out to harm Dorothy and her friends. Probably my favorite scenes in this movie were any scenes with the Nome King as he seems to be friendly towards Dorothy and her friends, but you can tell that he has some evil intentions up his sleeves and he actually means to trick Dorothy into a sense of security in order to manipulate her throughout her adventures. I loved the new friends that Dorothy makes along the way, especially Tik-Tok and Jack Pumpkinhead as they were truly original and fun to see on screen.
Parents should know that this movie can be pretty terrifying for small children. There are many scenes where Dorothy and her friends are in constant peril and are in danger of being killed by the villains. Also, there are some genuinely scary scenes such as the scene where Dorothy accidentally wakes up a headless Princess Mombi, who tries to capture Dorothy and the scenes with the Wheelers. Parents might want to screen this movie first before showing it to their children. Also, the reason why I took off half a point from the rating was because the movie can get pretty confusing at times and it was hard for me to follow what exactly happened in the plot at times.
Overall, "Return to Oz" is a truly enjoyable film that "Oz" fans would enjoy extremely well! However, this movie can get pretty scary at times, so watch this film with extreme caution.
Originally posted on: http://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/movie-review-return-to-oz-1985.html
Now I have a confession to make. Whenever I talked to people who have seen "Return to Oz" when they were little, many people were terrified of this movie when they were kids. Me however, I wasn't that scared of the movie when I was little and I actually found it to be pretty interesting and I still find it pretty interesting to this very day! This movie has actually turned my expectations on its head as it is a much darker sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" that has caused some controversy among "Oz" fans and yet, it was pulled off extremely well to make it stand out from "The Wizard of Oz." The surprising thing about all this is that this was the most faithful adaptation of L. Frank Baum's "Oz" books in terms of tone, even though "The Wizard of Oz" is hailed as one of the greatest movies of all time. What I really loved about this movie was the fact that it was darker and edgier than "The Wizard of Oz" and the villains in this movie seem genuinely threatening and are actually out to harm Dorothy and her friends. Probably my favorite scenes in this movie were any scenes with the Nome King as he seems to be friendly towards Dorothy and her friends, but you can tell that he has some evil intentions up his sleeves and he actually means to trick Dorothy into a sense of security in order to manipulate her throughout her adventures. I loved the new friends that Dorothy makes along the way, especially Tik-Tok and Jack Pumpkinhead as they were truly original and fun to see on screen.
Parents should know that this movie can be pretty terrifying for small children. There are many scenes where Dorothy and her friends are in constant peril and are in danger of being killed by the villains. Also, there are some genuinely scary scenes such as the scene where Dorothy accidentally wakes up a headless Princess Mombi, who tries to capture Dorothy and the scenes with the Wheelers. Parents might want to screen this movie first before showing it to their children. Also, the reason why I took off half a point from the rating was because the movie can get pretty confusing at times and it was hard for me to follow what exactly happened in the plot at times.
Overall, "Return to Oz" is a truly enjoyable film that "Oz" fans would enjoy extremely well! However, this movie can get pretty scary at times, so watch this film with extreme caution.
Originally posted on: http://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/movie-review-return-to-oz-1985.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Chief Zabu (2016) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
“Chief Zabu” Captures 80s America With A Comedic Twist
Greetings & Salutations Everyone!
It’s perplexing how so very few people seem to comprehend the grand efforts that go into the production of a movie. The numerous individuals involved, the various disciplines and skill sets, the length of production time, etc. The film I have the good fortune to share with you today has essentially been on one of the longest journeys I’ve ever heard of. A journey so lengthy in scope, it was the subject of a recurring gag during the tenure of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. 30 years. That’s right. It actually didn’t take 30 years to literally make/film the movie. Production for the film began in 1986. But due to an unforeseen series of circumstances, production was unable to be completed until 2016. Now if you’re a ‘die hard disciple’ of MST3K, obligations don’t matter. The fact that they thought enough of it to make it the subject of a running joke is advertisement enough to make you want to see the film. So … without further adieu I present for your consideration, “Chief Zabu”
“Chief Zabu” is a socio-political comedy that takes place primarily in New York during the mid-1980s and follows a determined New York businessman who believes his dreams of wealth and political power can be secured by cornering the economic future of a newly independent Polynesian country. The film was directed, produced, and written by Zack Norman (credited as Howard Zuker) and Neil Cohen. The film stars Allen Garfield, Zack Norman, Manu Tupou, Ed Lauter, Marianna Hill, Allan Arbus, Harsh Nayyar, Joseph Warren, Betty Karlen, Tom Nardini, Charles Siegal, Shirley Stoler, Lucianne Buchanan, and Ferdinand Mayne.
Chief Henri Zabu (Tupou) is the leader of a Polynesian country who has been thrust into the world of politics and has journeyed to New York City to secure recognition for his country from the United Nations. Secretly, he has come to hopefully secure investors and the finical backing to kickstart his country’s economy and infrastructure. Ben Sydney (Garfield) and his longtime friend and partner Sammy Brooks (Norman), are a pair of devious and crafty New York realtors going from one mediocre deal to the next while fantasizing about that ‘deal of a lifetime’ that will one day hopefully ‘find them’. It does. Sort of. Through a series of almost unreal interactions with a series of characters ranging from con artists to wealthy individuals who would likely push a family member into a pool if properly motivated, Ben and Sammy believe they’ve got the political and finance connections to make their ambitions a reality. And then, just when things are going so well … the proverbial rug looks as though it’s going to get pulled out from under them. So it would seem. New York realtors with political aspirations and possibly questionable morals. Does this ring any bells anyone?
Setting aside the comedic aspects of the film, it’s a fictional yet not unrealistic representation some of the political and economic influences that surrounded the arena of the United Nations in the mid to late 80’s. An interesting side story that depicts how first world nations would seize the opportunity to try and capitalize on newly independent or weaker nations by securing footholds in their economic and political power bases. Thereby funneling a nation’s resources and wealth away from those nations.
In the end, the film captures the 80’s in America much for what it was with a comedic twist. Celebrity worship, political backstabbing, and materialism. The only other film I can think of off the top of my head that did better would be ‘American Psycho’. Thankfully and perhaps gratefully, ‘Chief Zabu’ accomplished this WITHOUT the excessive and unprecedented depictions of violence. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The only way to one-up the movie is if we could take it back in time and give it the ‘MST3K’ treatment.
It’s perplexing how so very few people seem to comprehend the grand efforts that go into the production of a movie. The numerous individuals involved, the various disciplines and skill sets, the length of production time, etc. The film I have the good fortune to share with you today has essentially been on one of the longest journeys I’ve ever heard of. A journey so lengthy in scope, it was the subject of a recurring gag during the tenure of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. 30 years. That’s right. It actually didn’t take 30 years to literally make/film the movie. Production for the film began in 1986. But due to an unforeseen series of circumstances, production was unable to be completed until 2016. Now if you’re a ‘die hard disciple’ of MST3K, obligations don’t matter. The fact that they thought enough of it to make it the subject of a running joke is advertisement enough to make you want to see the film. So … without further adieu I present for your consideration, “Chief Zabu”
“Chief Zabu” is a socio-political comedy that takes place primarily in New York during the mid-1980s and follows a determined New York businessman who believes his dreams of wealth and political power can be secured by cornering the economic future of a newly independent Polynesian country. The film was directed, produced, and written by Zack Norman (credited as Howard Zuker) and Neil Cohen. The film stars Allen Garfield, Zack Norman, Manu Tupou, Ed Lauter, Marianna Hill, Allan Arbus, Harsh Nayyar, Joseph Warren, Betty Karlen, Tom Nardini, Charles Siegal, Shirley Stoler, Lucianne Buchanan, and Ferdinand Mayne.
Chief Henri Zabu (Tupou) is the leader of a Polynesian country who has been thrust into the world of politics and has journeyed to New York City to secure recognition for his country from the United Nations. Secretly, he has come to hopefully secure investors and the finical backing to kickstart his country’s economy and infrastructure. Ben Sydney (Garfield) and his longtime friend and partner Sammy Brooks (Norman), are a pair of devious and crafty New York realtors going from one mediocre deal to the next while fantasizing about that ‘deal of a lifetime’ that will one day hopefully ‘find them’. It does. Sort of. Through a series of almost unreal interactions with a series of characters ranging from con artists to wealthy individuals who would likely push a family member into a pool if properly motivated, Ben and Sammy believe they’ve got the political and finance connections to make their ambitions a reality. And then, just when things are going so well … the proverbial rug looks as though it’s going to get pulled out from under them. So it would seem. New York realtors with political aspirations and possibly questionable morals. Does this ring any bells anyone?
Setting aside the comedic aspects of the film, it’s a fictional yet not unrealistic representation some of the political and economic influences that surrounded the arena of the United Nations in the mid to late 80’s. An interesting side story that depicts how first world nations would seize the opportunity to try and capitalize on newly independent or weaker nations by securing footholds in their economic and political power bases. Thereby funneling a nation’s resources and wealth away from those nations.
In the end, the film captures the 80’s in America much for what it was with a comedic twist. Celebrity worship, political backstabbing, and materialism. The only other film I can think of off the top of my head that did better would be ‘American Psycho’. Thankfully and perhaps gratefully, ‘Chief Zabu’ accomplished this WITHOUT the excessive and unprecedented depictions of violence. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The only way to one-up the movie is if we could take it back in time and give it the ‘MST3K’ treatment.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Dec 27, 2020
Predictable and cliched
The Midnight Sky is a science fiction film directed by George Clooney, the latest in a long line of Netflix originals to hit our screens, based on the 2016 book ‘Good Morning, Midnight’ by Lily Brooks-Dalton. George Clooney plays Augustine, who encounters young girl Iris (the adorable Caoilinn Springall) after remaining on earth following a global apocalypse. Together they must travel across the Arctic to reach a weather station that will allow them to warn returning spaceship, the Aether, captained by Adewole (David Oyelowo) and crewed by Sully (Felicity Jones), Mitchell (Kyle Chandler), Sanchez (Demián Bichir) and Maya (Tiffany Boone).
The trailer for this had me concerned. It looked very similar to many other sci-fi/end of the world films (think Sunshine, Interstellar, even The Day After Tomorrow) and nothing about it looked particularly original. I had hoped that the trailer might be misleading, but I’m afraid to say that this is every bit as lacklustre and predictable as the trailer implied.
Visually this looks stunning, both the set design and the special effects have obviously had a decent amount of time and money invested in them. Alongside this, Alexandre Desplat’s score is beautifully ephemeral and haunting, and accompanies the story well, feeling very in keeping with both the Arctic and the space settings. And aside from a decent cast, I’m afraid these are the only good things I can say about this film. The main problem is the story itself, it’s entirely predictable and suffers from every space and sci-fi mishap you could ever think of, from unexplainable drifting off course to the destruction of important equipment (comms of course, would you expect any less?) due to an unpredicted meteor strike. And this cliched predictability just makes the story so dull and drawn out over its two hour runtime.
To be honest, the whole film itself and the actions of the characters just doesn’t make any sense. You have a pregnant astronaut, who has virtually no sexual chemistry with the man she’s having a baby with, and who’s allowed to go outside into space with little concern over her or her baby’s well-being. A scientist who falls into sub-zero Arctic water which appears to have little impact on his health. And a child walking around in a summer dress with bare legs in the Arctic climate. Admittedly this latter point is addressed towards the end of the film in a rather obvious and over used plot twist, which is still rather unsatisfying. There’s also the large number of unexplained plot points. I’m all for keeping the watcher guessing and hate films that feel the need to over explain every aspect of the plot, but The Midnight Sky takes the opposite approach and explains barely anything. If you go into this expecting to find out what caused the radiation apocalypse or what happened to the rest of earth’s population you’ll be sorely disappointed. It also makes references to a K-23 colony ship that the Aether hasn’t heard from, yet provides no explanation or background as to the outcome of said ship, and also gives us flashbacks to Augustine’s past yet with little reason other than to provide an “A-ha” moment for the aforementioned plot twist. And the decisions made by the astronauts on the Aether once they’ve found out about Earth’s fate are just laughably ridiculous especially considering the fate of the rest of the population.
Despite the promising cast and effects, The Midnight Sky is yet another disappointing Netflix original that is light years away from some of the more brilliant sci-fi stories that have come before it.
The trailer for this had me concerned. It looked very similar to many other sci-fi/end of the world films (think Sunshine, Interstellar, even The Day After Tomorrow) and nothing about it looked particularly original. I had hoped that the trailer might be misleading, but I’m afraid to say that this is every bit as lacklustre and predictable as the trailer implied.
Visually this looks stunning, both the set design and the special effects have obviously had a decent amount of time and money invested in them. Alongside this, Alexandre Desplat’s score is beautifully ephemeral and haunting, and accompanies the story well, feeling very in keeping with both the Arctic and the space settings. And aside from a decent cast, I’m afraid these are the only good things I can say about this film. The main problem is the story itself, it’s entirely predictable and suffers from every space and sci-fi mishap you could ever think of, from unexplainable drifting off course to the destruction of important equipment (comms of course, would you expect any less?) due to an unpredicted meteor strike. And this cliched predictability just makes the story so dull and drawn out over its two hour runtime.
To be honest, the whole film itself and the actions of the characters just doesn’t make any sense. You have a pregnant astronaut, who has virtually no sexual chemistry with the man she’s having a baby with, and who’s allowed to go outside into space with little concern over her or her baby’s well-being. A scientist who falls into sub-zero Arctic water which appears to have little impact on his health. And a child walking around in a summer dress with bare legs in the Arctic climate. Admittedly this latter point is addressed towards the end of the film in a rather obvious and over used plot twist, which is still rather unsatisfying. There’s also the large number of unexplained plot points. I’m all for keeping the watcher guessing and hate films that feel the need to over explain every aspect of the plot, but The Midnight Sky takes the opposite approach and explains barely anything. If you go into this expecting to find out what caused the radiation apocalypse or what happened to the rest of earth’s population you’ll be sorely disappointed. It also makes references to a K-23 colony ship that the Aether hasn’t heard from, yet provides no explanation or background as to the outcome of said ship, and also gives us flashbacks to Augustine’s past yet with little reason other than to provide an “A-ha” moment for the aforementioned plot twist. And the decisions made by the astronauts on the Aether once they’ve found out about Earth’s fate are just laughably ridiculous especially considering the fate of the rest of the population.
Despite the promising cast and effects, The Midnight Sky is yet another disappointing Netflix original that is light years away from some of the more brilliant sci-fi stories that have come before it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Commuter (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“This train is freaking me out”.
“The Commuter” is not a good film. You know that I’m not a prude about action films: “Die Hard” is one of my all time favourites and I even gave this actor/director combo’s previous outing – “Non-Stop” – a rather generous three Fads. But like many of my commutes, this is a hundred minutes of life that I won’t get back again.
Liam Neeson (“A Monster Calls“, “Taken 3“) plays Michael MacCauley an insurance salesman (no, I’m not making it up) who of course used to be a police officer with a certain set of skills. With advancing years, a couple of mortgages to keep up and a son about to go to college, he is financially rather exposed.
“Give me a sausage roll off the trolley…. NOW damn it”.
When a bad day turns worse, the commuting MacCauley is approached by a mysterious woman (Vera Farmiga, “The Judge“, “Up In The Air”) who offers him a financial bail-out for doing “just one small thing”. No, it’s not for sex in the toilet… it’s to use his familiarity with the train and its normal passengers to find the person that ‘doesn’t fit there’. For there is a lot at stake and MacCauley is drawn into a perilous game where his own life and the lives of his son and wife Karen (Elizabeth McGovern, “Downton Abbey”) are put at risk.
Vera Farmiga has a proposition for Liam Neeson.
What the inexperienced writers (Byron Willinger, Philip de Blasi and Ryan Engle (“Non-stop”)) were clearly shooting for was a Hitchcockian “ordinary man in deep-water” style flick of the James Stewart “North by Northwest” variety…. but they really miss this by a mile. With the 65 year old Liam Neeson – here playing 60 – performing acrobatics on, under and across an express train, belief is not just suspended – it is hung drawn and quartered! The action is just ludicrously unrealistic.
Unfortunately, Neeson – although still looking remarkably good for his advanced years – is increasingly is starting to look like Roger Moore in “A View to a Kill”: its time to hang up the ‘action hero’ coat and focus on more character acting pieces (this was the man who gave us Oskar Schindler after all).
A chain defies all the laws of physics… train guard Colin McFarlane tries to help Neeson avoid disaster. A green screen is obviously not evident!
The plot also has more holes than a moth-eaten jumper. Omnipotence of the villains is evident, but never explained, and while they are fiendishly clever in some aspects they are face-palmingly stupid about others. (No spoilers, but the threat to MacCauley’s family is mind-numbingly foilable).
It was fairly obvious that Obi Wan Kenobi was out of place on the train. No.. of course not… this was just MacCauley’s commuting pal Walt (Jonathan Banks)
A ‘major event’ at the end of reel two (if you’ve seen the spoilerish trailer you’ll know what this is) leads – notably without any ‘consequence’ – into a completely ridiculous final reel that beggars belief. It also includes a “twist” so obvious that the writers must have assumed an IQ of sub-50.
What’s the great Sam Neill (“Jurassic Park”) doing in this mess?
This is a film that melds “Taken”, “Non-stop”, “Unstoppable”, “Strangers on a Train” and – most bizarrely and cringe-worthily – “Spartacus” to create a cinematic mess of supreme proportions. I put director Jaume Collet-Serra’s last film – “The Shallows” – into my Top 10 films of 2016. He’ll be lucky if this one doesn’t make my “Turkeys of the Year” list for 2018.
Avoid!
Liam Neeson (“A Monster Calls“, “Taken 3“) plays Michael MacCauley an insurance salesman (no, I’m not making it up) who of course used to be a police officer with a certain set of skills. With advancing years, a couple of mortgages to keep up and a son about to go to college, he is financially rather exposed.
“Give me a sausage roll off the trolley…. NOW damn it”.
When a bad day turns worse, the commuting MacCauley is approached by a mysterious woman (Vera Farmiga, “The Judge“, “Up In The Air”) who offers him a financial bail-out for doing “just one small thing”. No, it’s not for sex in the toilet… it’s to use his familiarity with the train and its normal passengers to find the person that ‘doesn’t fit there’. For there is a lot at stake and MacCauley is drawn into a perilous game where his own life and the lives of his son and wife Karen (Elizabeth McGovern, “Downton Abbey”) are put at risk.
Vera Farmiga has a proposition for Liam Neeson.
What the inexperienced writers (Byron Willinger, Philip de Blasi and Ryan Engle (“Non-stop”)) were clearly shooting for was a Hitchcockian “ordinary man in deep-water” style flick of the James Stewart “North by Northwest” variety…. but they really miss this by a mile. With the 65 year old Liam Neeson – here playing 60 – performing acrobatics on, under and across an express train, belief is not just suspended – it is hung drawn and quartered! The action is just ludicrously unrealistic.
Unfortunately, Neeson – although still looking remarkably good for his advanced years – is increasingly is starting to look like Roger Moore in “A View to a Kill”: its time to hang up the ‘action hero’ coat and focus on more character acting pieces (this was the man who gave us Oskar Schindler after all).
A chain defies all the laws of physics… train guard Colin McFarlane tries to help Neeson avoid disaster. A green screen is obviously not evident!
The plot also has more holes than a moth-eaten jumper. Omnipotence of the villains is evident, but never explained, and while they are fiendishly clever in some aspects they are face-palmingly stupid about others. (No spoilers, but the threat to MacCauley’s family is mind-numbingly foilable).
It was fairly obvious that Obi Wan Kenobi was out of place on the train. No.. of course not… this was just MacCauley’s commuting pal Walt (Jonathan Banks)
A ‘major event’ at the end of reel two (if you’ve seen the spoilerish trailer you’ll know what this is) leads – notably without any ‘consequence’ – into a completely ridiculous final reel that beggars belief. It also includes a “twist” so obvious that the writers must have assumed an IQ of sub-50.
What’s the great Sam Neill (“Jurassic Park”) doing in this mess?
This is a film that melds “Taken”, “Non-stop”, “Unstoppable”, “Strangers on a Train” and – most bizarrely and cringe-worthily – “Spartacus” to create a cinematic mess of supreme proportions. I put director Jaume Collet-Serra’s last film – “The Shallows” – into my Top 10 films of 2016. He’ll be lucky if this one doesn’t make my “Turkeys of the Year” list for 2018.
Avoid!
Lee (2222 KP) rated Okja (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Seo-Hyun Ahn (1 more)
Seamless, beautiful effects
Should have stuck at being a family movie (1 more)
Jake Gyllenhaal
Plays as though it should be a family movie, but it definitely isn't
Okja created a fair bit of buzz at Cannes recently, when it was revealed that it had been picked up by Netflix, resulting in boos from some of the snobby traditionalists that were present for its screening. Okja was written and directed by Bong Joon Ho, a Korean filmmaker who also wrote and directed one of my favourite movies of recent years, Snowpiercer. That movie failed to receive a UK release, despite starring Chris Evans in-between his Captain America/Avengers duties, so I’m more than happy if a movie that’s just a little bit different from the norm manages to find an audience through modern, ‘non-traditional’ routes.
And Okja certainly is a bit different. We’re first introduced to CEO of Mirando Corporation, Lucy Mirando (Tilda Swinton) who has ‘bred’ superpigs, in an effort to help with world hunger. 26 of these superpigs are being sent to farmers at various locations around the world and in 10 years time a competition is planned to determine who has raised the largest superpig. Lucy is clearly a bit strange (the perfect role for Tilda Swinton), and her company spokesperson, TV zoologist Johnny Wilcox (Jake Gyllenhaal) is even stranger. They’re determined to put a friendly, happy gloss over the fact that these animals have been genetically modified for slaughter and profit. So, time for us to get to know, and fall in love with one of them…
It’s now 10 years later and we’re with Mija, a young girl living in the mountains of Korea with her grandfather and Okja, the large hippo-like superpig who has become her close friend. They spend their time together out in the forest, with Okja helping to catch fish for dinner, and proving to be a faithful companion for Mija. And when disaster strikes, Okja even demonstrates the intelligence required to work out how to save Mija’s life. Okja is beautifully rendered in CGI, interacting perfectly with the surroundings and actors and is thoroughly convincing. It’s an enchanting and beautiful half hour or so – but we know it’s not going to last.
A small team from the Miranda Corporation arrives, along with Johnny Wilcox, who is just hugely annoying. They’re here to check up on how Okja is doing and, unbeknown to Mija, take her back to New York as the winner of the superpig contest. While Mija is in the forest with her grandfather she discovers what they’re planning and heads off to rescue Okja. What follows is an entertaining and thrilling chase to get Okja before she heads onto a plane. Mija is fearless and determined, a strong young heroine and probably the best thing about this movie. Along the way she is joined by the Animal Liberation Front, a young team that includes Steven Yeun, Paul Dano and Lily Collins. They know where Okja is headed and what her fate will be and they plan to stop it, with the help of Mija.
Much of Okja plays as though it should be a family movie and I wish that’s how they’d made it. With a large, friendly creature companion that needs to be rescued from the bad guys, much of this reminded me of the 2016 live action remake of Pete’s Dragon, which I enjoyed a lot. However, the final hour or so turns distinctly dark as we venture into the slaughterhouse and that, along with regular use of bad language, has given this movie a 15 certificate. It’s a strange variation of styles that just didn’t sit right with me overall. As mentioned before, Gyllenhaals character is seriously annoying and would have been much better suited as the wacky comic relief if this were a family movie. Tilda Swinton soon becomes boring too and it’s left to Mija and Okja to save the movie from becoming a total disaster.
Entertaining and enjoyable at times, but the wild variation of styles and characters just made the latter half of the movie drag.
And Okja certainly is a bit different. We’re first introduced to CEO of Mirando Corporation, Lucy Mirando (Tilda Swinton) who has ‘bred’ superpigs, in an effort to help with world hunger. 26 of these superpigs are being sent to farmers at various locations around the world and in 10 years time a competition is planned to determine who has raised the largest superpig. Lucy is clearly a bit strange (the perfect role for Tilda Swinton), and her company spokesperson, TV zoologist Johnny Wilcox (Jake Gyllenhaal) is even stranger. They’re determined to put a friendly, happy gloss over the fact that these animals have been genetically modified for slaughter and profit. So, time for us to get to know, and fall in love with one of them…
It’s now 10 years later and we’re with Mija, a young girl living in the mountains of Korea with her grandfather and Okja, the large hippo-like superpig who has become her close friend. They spend their time together out in the forest, with Okja helping to catch fish for dinner, and proving to be a faithful companion for Mija. And when disaster strikes, Okja even demonstrates the intelligence required to work out how to save Mija’s life. Okja is beautifully rendered in CGI, interacting perfectly with the surroundings and actors and is thoroughly convincing. It’s an enchanting and beautiful half hour or so – but we know it’s not going to last.
A small team from the Miranda Corporation arrives, along with Johnny Wilcox, who is just hugely annoying. They’re here to check up on how Okja is doing and, unbeknown to Mija, take her back to New York as the winner of the superpig contest. While Mija is in the forest with her grandfather she discovers what they’re planning and heads off to rescue Okja. What follows is an entertaining and thrilling chase to get Okja before she heads onto a plane. Mija is fearless and determined, a strong young heroine and probably the best thing about this movie. Along the way she is joined by the Animal Liberation Front, a young team that includes Steven Yeun, Paul Dano and Lily Collins. They know where Okja is headed and what her fate will be and they plan to stop it, with the help of Mija.
Much of Okja plays as though it should be a family movie and I wish that’s how they’d made it. With a large, friendly creature companion that needs to be rescued from the bad guys, much of this reminded me of the 2016 live action remake of Pete’s Dragon, which I enjoyed a lot. However, the final hour or so turns distinctly dark as we venture into the slaughterhouse and that, along with regular use of bad language, has given this movie a 15 certificate. It’s a strange variation of styles that just didn’t sit right with me overall. As mentioned before, Gyllenhaals character is seriously annoying and would have been much better suited as the wacky comic relief if this were a family movie. Tilda Swinton soon becomes boring too and it’s left to Mija and Okja to save the movie from becoming a total disaster.
Entertaining and enjoyable at times, but the wild variation of styles and characters just made the latter half of the movie drag.
Mothergamer (1521 KP) rated Birth of the Dragon (2016) in Movies
Apr 3, 2019
At first I was curious about the movie that was meant to be about Bruce Lee titled Birth of the Dragon. I love Bruce Lee. I grew up watching his movies, I watched episodes of The Green Hornet, and I voraciously read everything I could about him. One of my titos (that's Tagalog for uncle) told me about how he met Bruce Lee before and how kind he was. I am Filipino and white so I grew up with both these cultures and I'm grateful for it. My family has all kinds of people from all over and all walks of life and I love them dearly. When I would visit my Filipino family I loved that we would often gather round together on the couch with popcorn and snacks and watch Bruce Lee movies. This was special and it's one of my favorite memories from my childhood. I would watch Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid and I would be excited when they would feature a Bruce Lee movie. My grandparents weren't really into it, but they would watch with me and my brother Rob sometimes.
I will always love Bruce Lee and his movies. He was an incredible person and so talented. Watching his movies was a huge part of my childhood and when I see that there's a Bruce Lee movie on, I always watch it.
I didn't know anything about Birth of the Dragon. There was a trailer that looked interesting. Then I kept hearing negative things about the film such as it's racist towards Asians and they made Bruce Lee the secondary character yet claimed it was a biopic about him. Then I read this: http://www.asamnews.com/2016/09/29/birth-of-the-dragon-biopic-enrages-bruce-lee-fans-buries-asians-in-favor-of-a-white-guy/
Birth of the Dragon is disappointing to me for this. It IS insulting to Asians and if we're really being brutally honest, it IS insulting not only to Bruce Lee, but to his family and friends who loved him. I don't understand making the white guy the main character when this was shopped as a Bruce Lee biopic. On top of this, it seems they made Bruce Lee appear to be this very one sided character who was just arrogant and stupid and it's simply not true. While Lee himself owned up to being foolish when he was younger, he was never stupid. Bruce Lee thought about each and every thing he did and in his movies there was always a political theme and the ideas expressed were intricate and well thought out. They provoked ideas and discussions as well as entertained. Read any of his books on martial arts and you see a deep philosophy and calm practicality to his teachings that show someone who was an incredibly thoughtful person.
The Filipino kid in me is extremely disappointed by this and a little angry too because Bruce Lee is one of my heroes and I'm disgusted by what appears to be blatantly anti-Asian propaganda in a film that was being sold as a biopic about him. This is irresponsible and Asian people have every right to be angry about this because once again Hollywood is shoving us into the background and telling us we're not as important because we're not white. I loved Bruce Lee because he was amazing and I loved that there was an Asian person who was the main character in his movies; someone like me and my brothers and my sister. That meant something to me and it still does. The people who made this movie should apologize for the horrible lie they told about this being a biopic about Bruce Lee and at least be honest about what it really is a film stating that white people are better than us. We'll never get that apology of course because these are the kinds of people who run Hollywood and have for years. I do know that I for one will not see this film and I will watch Bruce Lee's movies and celebrate the amazing person he was.
I will always love Bruce Lee and his movies. He was an incredible person and so talented. Watching his movies was a huge part of my childhood and when I see that there's a Bruce Lee movie on, I always watch it.
I didn't know anything about Birth of the Dragon. There was a trailer that looked interesting. Then I kept hearing negative things about the film such as it's racist towards Asians and they made Bruce Lee the secondary character yet claimed it was a biopic about him. Then I read this: http://www.asamnews.com/2016/09/29/birth-of-the-dragon-biopic-enrages-bruce-lee-fans-buries-asians-in-favor-of-a-white-guy/
Birth of the Dragon is disappointing to me for this. It IS insulting to Asians and if we're really being brutally honest, it IS insulting not only to Bruce Lee, but to his family and friends who loved him. I don't understand making the white guy the main character when this was shopped as a Bruce Lee biopic. On top of this, it seems they made Bruce Lee appear to be this very one sided character who was just arrogant and stupid and it's simply not true. While Lee himself owned up to being foolish when he was younger, he was never stupid. Bruce Lee thought about each and every thing he did and in his movies there was always a political theme and the ideas expressed were intricate and well thought out. They provoked ideas and discussions as well as entertained. Read any of his books on martial arts and you see a deep philosophy and calm practicality to his teachings that show someone who was an incredibly thoughtful person.
The Filipino kid in me is extremely disappointed by this and a little angry too because Bruce Lee is one of my heroes and I'm disgusted by what appears to be blatantly anti-Asian propaganda in a film that was being sold as a biopic about him. This is irresponsible and Asian people have every right to be angry about this because once again Hollywood is shoving us into the background and telling us we're not as important because we're not white. I loved Bruce Lee because he was amazing and I loved that there was an Asian person who was the main character in his movies; someone like me and my brothers and my sister. That meant something to me and it still does. The people who made this movie should apologize for the horrible lie they told about this being a biopic about Bruce Lee and at least be honest about what it really is a film stating that white people are better than us. We'll never get that apology of course because these are the kinds of people who run Hollywood and have for years. I do know that I for one will not see this film and I will watch Bruce Lee's movies and celebrate the amazing person he was.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 25, 2019
Succeeds...mostly...thanks to the charm and charisma of Will Smith
Unnecessary...a money grab...what was Will Smith thinking...why would Disney do this?
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)