Search
Middlemarch
Rosemary Ashton and George Eliot
6.3
Rate It
Book
George Eliot's masterpiece, groundbreaking in its psychological insight into powerful clashes of...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Year of Living Dangerously (1983) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
A Story That Falls Short
The Year of Living Dangerously follows the story of reporter Guy Hamilton (Mel Gibson) during a tumultuous time of civil unrest in Indonesia.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
I won’t lie, I restarted this movie probably three times before I finally committed. It’s hard for a movie to bounce back for me when it gets off to such a sluggish start. The setup borders on painful in spots and it sets the tone for what is to come.
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
One of the shining moments of the movie as it captures 60’s Indonesia beautifully. I was easily transported into the time period and the culture feeling right at home. I also appreciate how the romance between Hamilton and Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver) was captured by director Peter Weir. It felt both endearing and sincere.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 4
The movie was painfully dry. Outside of the romance, it was hard for anything else to really capture my attention. There were times where I thought things would pick up only to be let down again. Unfortunate as I was hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
It’s a struggle trying to remember anything that stood out in the film. While there were one or two things that got my attention, things were pretty drab for the most part. Sitting through this again would almost be like a brand new boring experience.
Pace: 3
Slower than a turtle, there were times where I begged for this movie to end. I kept holding out hope that things would take a turn. Alas…You can’t take too long to get to the point and be disinteresting. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Plot: 7
The story itself wasn’t bad at all, I just wish they could have found a way to make things more interesting. The lack of layers really made things fall short for me. A lot of unrealized potential here just left on the table.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 61
For more reasons than one, I just couldn’t get into The Year of Living Dangerously. “Hate” would be a strong word as there were glimpses of a solid movie…but I can’t say I liked it. Nor can I recommend it. There are a number of better 80’s classics out there.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
I won’t lie, I restarted this movie probably three times before I finally committed. It’s hard for a movie to bounce back for me when it gets off to such a sluggish start. The setup borders on painful in spots and it sets the tone for what is to come.
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
One of the shining moments of the movie as it captures 60’s Indonesia beautifully. I was easily transported into the time period and the culture feeling right at home. I also appreciate how the romance between Hamilton and Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver) was captured by director Peter Weir. It felt both endearing and sincere.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 4
The movie was painfully dry. Outside of the romance, it was hard for anything else to really capture my attention. There were times where I thought things would pick up only to be let down again. Unfortunate as I was hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
It’s a struggle trying to remember anything that stood out in the film. While there were one or two things that got my attention, things were pretty drab for the most part. Sitting through this again would almost be like a brand new boring experience.
Pace: 3
Slower than a turtle, there were times where I begged for this movie to end. I kept holding out hope that things would take a turn. Alas…You can’t take too long to get to the point and be disinteresting. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Plot: 7
The story itself wasn’t bad at all, I just wish they could have found a way to make things more interesting. The lack of layers really made things fall short for me. A lot of unrealized potential here just left on the table.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 61
For more reasons than one, I just couldn’t get into The Year of Living Dangerously. “Hate” would be a strong word as there were glimpses of a solid movie…but I can’t say I liked it. Nor can I recommend it. There are a number of better 80’s classics out there.
Legend Hunter
Games and Stickers
App
Legend Hunter is a fast-paced action multiplayer RPG in 3D. Collect more than 25 Heroes from 5...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Salt (2010) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Disappointing 80's retread...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Salt. The trailer looked rubbish, dated and starring Angelina Jolie, was never going to tickle my fancy. Reminding me of Rodger Donaldson's, Kevin Costner starrer, No Way Out, I felt that the attempt may be to bring that 80′s thriller to a new audience but instead we got a very confused tome. Firstly, I will cover the good points, which start with the script.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Eleanor & Park in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
The feels with this book, seriously! I even had a book hangover after reading Eleanor & Park by Rainbow Rowell. That's how good it was!
15 year old Eleanor is starting a new school. What's even worse is she gets bullied for being overweight and for dressing differently then everyone else. On the first day of school, Eleanor sits beside Park on the bus. At first, they ignore each other, but eventually, Park and Eleanor become closer and closer. Eleanor's family is less than perfect. Her step-dad hates Eleanor. Eleanor thinks Park's family is perfect. Will their love survive?
The title of this book is quite simple, but it works. It's very straightforward. It's a book about Eleanor and Park plus their relationship.
When I first picked up this book, the cover reminded me of a book from the 1980's or 1990's which is perfect considering this book takes place in 1986. Like the time, it is also simplistic, but it works.
I loved the world building! It was quite easy to imagine something like this happening. While the story takes place in 1986, it feels like it could happen in almost any decade. There's talk of cassette tapes and walkmans which were very 80's and 90's. There's talk of bands that were popular around 1986, but when I read it, I felt like it could even take place now.
The pacing was fantastic! From the first page, I was hooked. Every page just kept getting better and better, and by the end of the story, I was sad that it was over. I felt as if I had lost two really good friends.
I enjoyed the plot. A girl from a broken and abused household falls in love with a boy from a "normal" household. She gets her first boyfriend and is overjoyed. The boy swears he has never felt that way before. Yes, it's been done, but I assure you, Rowell makes this story original and unique. I felt that the ending of the book leaves you to form your own opinion of what happens next though. I do wish it was written in black and white because I hate speculating.
I was in love with Eleanor and Park! I can relate to Eleanor though because I was that overweight kid in high school that was sometimes made fun of. I didn't dress like her, but I get how she feels. I hated that Richie, her step-dad, was so mean to her. I kept wanting Richie to just leave. He was such a horrid person! Park was a sweetheart, and I love how he was willing to endure the teasing just to be with Eleanor. Park had a very big heart when it came to Eleanor.
The dialogue was absolutely perfect! I loved the interactions between Park and Eleanor. I also enjoyed how the story would switch between Park and Eleanor so we'd get more of an insight as to what each character was thinking and feeling. There is some swearing in this book and some mild violence.
Overall, Eleanor & Park is such a sweet and emotional read. The characters are easy to love, the pacing is fantastic, and the world building is brilliantly done!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who would like to get lost in a great book!
(I won an ARC paperback of this title in a competition. I was not required to write a review)
The feels with this book, seriously! I even had a book hangover after reading Eleanor & Park by Rainbow Rowell. That's how good it was!
15 year old Eleanor is starting a new school. What's even worse is she gets bullied for being overweight and for dressing differently then everyone else. On the first day of school, Eleanor sits beside Park on the bus. At first, they ignore each other, but eventually, Park and Eleanor become closer and closer. Eleanor's family is less than perfect. Her step-dad hates Eleanor. Eleanor thinks Park's family is perfect. Will their love survive?
The title of this book is quite simple, but it works. It's very straightforward. It's a book about Eleanor and Park plus their relationship.
When I first picked up this book, the cover reminded me of a book from the 1980's or 1990's which is perfect considering this book takes place in 1986. Like the time, it is also simplistic, but it works.
I loved the world building! It was quite easy to imagine something like this happening. While the story takes place in 1986, it feels like it could happen in almost any decade. There's talk of cassette tapes and walkmans which were very 80's and 90's. There's talk of bands that were popular around 1986, but when I read it, I felt like it could even take place now.
The pacing was fantastic! From the first page, I was hooked. Every page just kept getting better and better, and by the end of the story, I was sad that it was over. I felt as if I had lost two really good friends.
I enjoyed the plot. A girl from a broken and abused household falls in love with a boy from a "normal" household. She gets her first boyfriend and is overjoyed. The boy swears he has never felt that way before. Yes, it's been done, but I assure you, Rowell makes this story original and unique. I felt that the ending of the book leaves you to form your own opinion of what happens next though. I do wish it was written in black and white because I hate speculating.
I was in love with Eleanor and Park! I can relate to Eleanor though because I was that overweight kid in high school that was sometimes made fun of. I didn't dress like her, but I get how she feels. I hated that Richie, her step-dad, was so mean to her. I kept wanting Richie to just leave. He was such a horrid person! Park was a sweetheart, and I love how he was willing to endure the teasing just to be with Eleanor. Park had a very big heart when it came to Eleanor.
The dialogue was absolutely perfect! I loved the interactions between Park and Eleanor. I also enjoyed how the story would switch between Park and Eleanor so we'd get more of an insight as to what each character was thinking and feeling. There is some swearing in this book and some mild violence.
Overall, Eleanor & Park is such a sweet and emotional read. The characters are easy to love, the pacing is fantastic, and the world building is brilliantly done!
I'd recommend this book to those aged 15+ who would like to get lost in a great book!
(I won an ARC paperback of this title in a competition. I was not required to write a review)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 17, 2018
Entertaining film - but the book was better
I loved the book.
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Quatermass Experiment (2005) in Movies
Sep 14, 2020
The first U.K. Maned mission to space vanishes off course only to return with two two of it's three crew missing and the third unable to communicate. As Professor Quatermass and his team try to find out what happened they discover that they come to realise that the rocket may have returned with more than they first thought.
As remakes go This one is quite good, it follows the same basic script as the original and the modernisation (mostly) works. The film doesn't go for much in the way of monster effects, relying instead on building atmosphere and tension which helps it keep the feel of the original 1955 version. It also helps that the original writer, Nigel Kneale, was also consulted on this remake.
This version of the film does have a very (modern) British feel to it which is mostly from the fact that is was made by the BBC so has actors that have appeared in other BBC sic Fi shows, most noticeably David Tennant and Mark Gatiss.
I do have a couple of problems with this film though, firstly the main set, used though tout the first half of the film does look to much like a,well film set. The hospital ward, MoD offices and press conference room all appear to be in the same building and, in fact in one scene, the camera pans from one room to the next making the whole thing look as if it was set up in a warehouse or large stage, which it probability was for filming but you shouldn't realy notice that in the finished film.
The other issue was some of the costumes. The film seems to be set in time it was filmed (2007) but some of the costumes don't seem to fit. One reporter looks like a 'teddy boy' whilst one looks like she's from the 20's and there's a scene with 80's/90's looking goths (Yes I know there are still goths but the look has changed a bit through the decades, as with most looks).
I can't quite work out if the remake looses anything from the original, in some ways the threat seems bigger but the ending seems less climatic. The final scene takes place in an art gallery instead of a church but this is due to a slight change in some of the symbology in the film (and probably because the BBC have had complainants when they have blown up churches in the past).
The original had scenes that stuck with me ( I was quite young when i first saw it) and I feel that the remake doesn't have this effect, although that could just be my age now. However the remake does up the tension and it does feel that there is more riding on Quatermass' success
Apart from those points the film is good. Fans of the original will recognise it for what it is but new views won't need any knowledge of the original to watch it.
As remakes go This one is quite good, it follows the same basic script as the original and the modernisation (mostly) works. The film doesn't go for much in the way of monster effects, relying instead on building atmosphere and tension which helps it keep the feel of the original 1955 version. It also helps that the original writer, Nigel Kneale, was also consulted on this remake.
This version of the film does have a very (modern) British feel to it which is mostly from the fact that is was made by the BBC so has actors that have appeared in other BBC sic Fi shows, most noticeably David Tennant and Mark Gatiss.
I do have a couple of problems with this film though, firstly the main set, used though tout the first half of the film does look to much like a,well film set. The hospital ward, MoD offices and press conference room all appear to be in the same building and, in fact in one scene, the camera pans from one room to the next making the whole thing look as if it was set up in a warehouse or large stage, which it probability was for filming but you shouldn't realy notice that in the finished film.
The other issue was some of the costumes. The film seems to be set in time it was filmed (2007) but some of the costumes don't seem to fit. One reporter looks like a 'teddy boy' whilst one looks like she's from the 20's and there's a scene with 80's/90's looking goths (Yes I know there are still goths but the look has changed a bit through the decades, as with most looks).
I can't quite work out if the remake looses anything from the original, in some ways the threat seems bigger but the ending seems less climatic. The final scene takes place in an art gallery instead of a church but this is due to a slight change in some of the symbology in the film (and probably because the BBC have had complainants when they have blown up churches in the past).
The original had scenes that stuck with me ( I was quite young when i first saw it) and I feel that the remake doesn't have this effect, although that could just be my age now. However the remake does up the tension and it does feel that there is more riding on Quatermass' success
Apart from those points the film is good. Fans of the original will recognise it for what it is but new views won't need any knowledge of the original to watch it.
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated Happy Death Day (2017) in Movies
Oct 23, 2017 (Updated Jan 11, 2019)
Funnier than a horror film and bloodier than a comedy
Have you ever just wanted to watch someone die??? Over and over and over and over again???
Well... This movie gives you the opportunity to watch an annoying sorority girl get slaughtered time and time again.
Mind you, she does lighten up a little bit as she dies again and again... Eventually streaking theough a full quad on campus because she just knows she's going to croak.
Overall, this movie is fun. A little silly, but it's horror... Its supposed to be silly...ish... But not too silly like Saturday the 14th and Student Bodies from the 80's... Which i recommend if you want to fall into a deep sleep... Happy Death Day is a vicious little horror film... That has the ability to make you belly laugh so hard it can hurt.
The sequel... Happy Death Day 2 U comes out on Febuary 14th of this year(2019). And i am already trying to get tickets...
In closing just let me add that I am not a huge fan of the newer horror film. If you've read my reviews you know that I hate the fact that everything Netflix comes out with horror wise, with the exceptions of 1922 and The Haunting of Hill House, is complete garbage. But Jason Blum knows good horror. He is a seriously deranged individual who completely gets what horror fans want... He's had his hands in some of the finest. The Purge series, Insidious series.
I only hope he gets his hands on the rights for Friday the 13th and finally does it some justice.
So Happy Death Day.... Give er. Ita worth it.
Well... This movie gives you the opportunity to watch an annoying sorority girl get slaughtered time and time again.
Mind you, she does lighten up a little bit as she dies again and again... Eventually streaking theough a full quad on campus because she just knows she's going to croak.
Overall, this movie is fun. A little silly, but it's horror... Its supposed to be silly...ish... But not too silly like Saturday the 14th and Student Bodies from the 80's... Which i recommend if you want to fall into a deep sleep... Happy Death Day is a vicious little horror film... That has the ability to make you belly laugh so hard it can hurt.
The sequel... Happy Death Day 2 U comes out on Febuary 14th of this year(2019). And i am already trying to get tickets...
In closing just let me add that I am not a huge fan of the newer horror film. If you've read my reviews you know that I hate the fact that everything Netflix comes out with horror wise, with the exceptions of 1922 and The Haunting of Hill House, is complete garbage. But Jason Blum knows good horror. He is a seriously deranged individual who completely gets what horror fans want... He's had his hands in some of the finest. The Purge series, Insidious series.
I only hope he gets his hands on the rights for Friday the 13th and finally does it some justice.
So Happy Death Day.... Give er. Ita worth it.
The Marinated Meeple (1848 KP) rated Top Gun (1986) in Movies
Apr 1, 2018
Karaoke scenes (5 more)
Insisting on a shower
Taking me to bed before you lose me forever
Having goose talk to you....
Val Kilmer is awesome, despite not wanting to even be in it, had to for contractual reasons... it's one of his all time best.
The "Danger Zone" soundtrack
A Modern Classic, and Tom Cruise's best work.
this is an 80's classic, a movies movie. Cinema perfection. It embodies a time with no excuses, and really delivers on every level. want to know how quotable this movie is: The real Top Gun School imposes a five dollar fine to anyone in the staff that quotes the movie.
Val Kilmer is amazing: When the guys, as students, were first being spoken to by Charlie in the hanger, Maverick explains that he gave "the bird" to a MiG. She asks how he saw the MiG up close, and he says he was flying inverted. Right then, Ice coughs "bullshit" and the guys laughed. The "bullshit" line was ad libbed by Val Kilmer, and everyone's reactions are genuine.
Also a little known fat.No one had ever "buzzed the tower" at Miramar before. The Navy pilots, who were flying the scenes for the film, drew straws to see who would get to do it. It went to Lieutenant Commander Lloyd "Bozo" Abel. Michael Ironside just happened to be at the hangar that day, and the plane flew low enough to where he could actually see into the cockpit as it flew by. He said it was one of the most spectacular things he'd ever seen.
As is this movie good sir... as is this movie....
Also here is an awesome alternate movie poster for your enjoyment. I hope it holds you over until Top Gun 2 comes out.
Val Kilmer is amazing: When the guys, as students, were first being spoken to by Charlie in the hanger, Maverick explains that he gave "the bird" to a MiG. She asks how he saw the MiG up close, and he says he was flying inverted. Right then, Ice coughs "bullshit" and the guys laughed. The "bullshit" line was ad libbed by Val Kilmer, and everyone's reactions are genuine.
Also a little known fat.No one had ever "buzzed the tower" at Miramar before. The Navy pilots, who were flying the scenes for the film, drew straws to see who would get to do it. It went to Lieutenant Commander Lloyd "Bozo" Abel. Michael Ironside just happened to be at the hangar that day, and the plane flew low enough to where he could actually see into the cockpit as it flew by. He said it was one of the most spectacular things he'd ever seen.
As is this movie good sir... as is this movie....
Also here is an awesome alternate movie poster for your enjoyment. I hope it holds you over until Top Gun 2 comes out.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 30, 2018
Visual magic and Van Halen. What could be better?
I very much dislike when people compare movies to books since most of the time they will say "the book was better". Books and movies are completely different mediums and therefore should be judged individually, not compared to one another.
I remember reading one time John Grisham was interviewed after The Firm was released and said if they had stuck to the book, 45 minutes of the movie would have been the characters making photo copies of important papers.
Books can delve into details better. An author can spend six chapters describing a tree or get into character's heads and know what they are thinking. There can even be 38 main characters.
Movies are completely different and should be judged that way. Some may say filmmakers changed certain elements which worked just fine in print. Truthfully I do not understand why things are changed either; however, just because something is different does not make it worse.
Whew ok.
Ready Player One was old school Spielberg magic, plain and simple. The story was nothing special. The villains were sort of cardboard and one-dimensional, but maybe they were supposed to be like that. I mean, weren't the villains in Real Genius or Biff Tannen just as hokey?
The visual splendor and eye candy I usually rip on were vast this time around and thoroughly kept me engaged the whole way through.
I will hopefully watch again soon so I can pick on some of the Easter eggs I missed the first time around.
This film is for anyone who lived through the 80's as I did and loves movies as I do.
I remember reading one time John Grisham was interviewed after The Firm was released and said if they had stuck to the book, 45 minutes of the movie would have been the characters making photo copies of important papers.
Books can delve into details better. An author can spend six chapters describing a tree or get into character's heads and know what they are thinking. There can even be 38 main characters.
Movies are completely different and should be judged that way. Some may say filmmakers changed certain elements which worked just fine in print. Truthfully I do not understand why things are changed either; however, just because something is different does not make it worse.
Whew ok.
Ready Player One was old school Spielberg magic, plain and simple. The story was nothing special. The villains were sort of cardboard and one-dimensional, but maybe they were supposed to be like that. I mean, weren't the villains in Real Genius or Biff Tannen just as hokey?
The visual splendor and eye candy I usually rip on were vast this time around and thoroughly kept me engaged the whole way through.
I will hopefully watch again soon so I can pick on some of the Easter eggs I missed the first time around.
This film is for anyone who lived through the 80's as I did and loves movies as I do.
