Search
Search results
Potion Explosion
Games
App
The official adaptation of Potion Explosion, the award-winning puzzle board game. Play this game...
El Parchís
Games
App
Parchís is one of the most popular board games in Spain. It is an adaptation of the Indian game...
Laura Doe (1350 KP) rated Die For Me (Killing Eve #3) in Books
Jan 20, 2022
As with the previous book, we pick up exactly where we left off with Eve and Villanelle. On the run and trying to stay undetected, Villanelle takes Eve to her country of birth in a shipping container, and when they land in Russia it is far from smooth.
We follow Eve and Villanelle as they try to remain hidden from the Twelve’s all seeing eyes while trying to figure out what their next move should be. I really started to hope and wonder if they could manage to start a new and happy life together as things seemed to slot into place. But, obviously, things were never going to be that simple when it came to these characters. Throughout this book, Eve starts to become more and more like Villanelle, probably because she is in survival mode, the only difference being that she does feel some guilt over what is happening. I sort of saw the twist at the end of the book coming, but also didn’t want to believe that it would happen as I wanted everything to work out nicely for them.
This book, unlike the others, is all written from Eve’s point of view. This means that we get a lot more insight into Eve’s feelings and her struggle to understand Villanelle and her behaviours towards her. You can see that Eve loves Villanelle despite everything while Villanelle seems to behave in ways that will intentionally hurt Eve and then uses her diagnosis as a psychopath to excuse her behaviour. The good thing is that Eve repeatedly tells her that she can’t use it as an excuse, but at the same time she still lets Villanelle get away with the behaviour.
Overall, I would give this final instalment 4.5 stars as I really enjoyed it and didn’t put it down until I had read the very last word. I wish that there were more books coming as I have found this series really good reads (despite them being about a psychopath assassin!) and although I love them, I think the TV series is a great adaptation of them, even if they have gone in slightly different directions. I will miss Eve and Villanelle immensely now that I have finished the series.
We follow Eve and Villanelle as they try to remain hidden from the Twelve’s all seeing eyes while trying to figure out what their next move should be. I really started to hope and wonder if they could manage to start a new and happy life together as things seemed to slot into place. But, obviously, things were never going to be that simple when it came to these characters. Throughout this book, Eve starts to become more and more like Villanelle, probably because she is in survival mode, the only difference being that she does feel some guilt over what is happening. I sort of saw the twist at the end of the book coming, but also didn’t want to believe that it would happen as I wanted everything to work out nicely for them.
This book, unlike the others, is all written from Eve’s point of view. This means that we get a lot more insight into Eve’s feelings and her struggle to understand Villanelle and her behaviours towards her. You can see that Eve loves Villanelle despite everything while Villanelle seems to behave in ways that will intentionally hurt Eve and then uses her diagnosis as a psychopath to excuse her behaviour. The good thing is that Eve repeatedly tells her that she can’t use it as an excuse, but at the same time she still lets Villanelle get away with the behaviour.
Overall, I would give this final instalment 4.5 stars as I really enjoyed it and didn’t put it down until I had read the very last word. I wish that there were more books coming as I have found this series really good reads (despite them being about a psychopath assassin!) and although I love them, I think the TV series is a great adaptation of them, even if they have gone in slightly different directions. I will miss Eve and Villanelle immensely now that I have finished the series.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All Quiet on the Western Front (2022) in Movies
Feb 2, 2023
Shows The Futility and Bleakness of War
War is hell. And if you don’t think it is check out the 2022 German film version of the classic novel ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT about a young German’s experience towards the end of World War I. It is a bleak, grim view of war told unflinchingly and drives home the point of the pointlessness of war (especially the trench warfare of WWI). It is bravura filmmaking that deserves to be mentioned with the great war films of all time.
And the book is even bleaker.
Directed by Edward Berger, ALL QUIET follows young Felix Kammerer (Paul Baumer) as he joyfully joins the German army to fight the French. Quickly, Felix learns of the cost of war and the grim reality of trench warfare.
Berger has a strong view of all of this and his Direction and Camerawork are squarely focused on young Felix and his continued attempts to stay alive amidst the fighting. Berger handles the action - and the acting - strongly and the Cinematography of this film by James Friend aides in the bleakness and futility of the conflict, showering the combatants in muted blues and grays and covering them all in mud. Berger does not hold back on the horrors of war (without going to “gorey”) and delivers a moody, bleak and important film.
Baumer plays Felix with an innocent sincerity that gives way to resolute abandonment of hope as the bleakness of the affair drags on. His futility is, then, juxtaposed against German envoy Matthias Erzberger (Daniel Bruhl) who is trying to negotiate a surrender with the French. The building frustration of both men are clearly shown growing as the film elapses.
And that is another strong suit about this film - it shows the situations, the hopelessness and negativity of war without having to “tell” or comment about it. The pictures are all one needs to know.
An anti-war film of the highest order, ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT is a must see - the best adaptation of this classic novel ever.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And the book is even bleaker.
Directed by Edward Berger, ALL QUIET follows young Felix Kammerer (Paul Baumer) as he joyfully joins the German army to fight the French. Quickly, Felix learns of the cost of war and the grim reality of trench warfare.
Berger has a strong view of all of this and his Direction and Camerawork are squarely focused on young Felix and his continued attempts to stay alive amidst the fighting. Berger handles the action - and the acting - strongly and the Cinematography of this film by James Friend aides in the bleakness and futility of the conflict, showering the combatants in muted blues and grays and covering them all in mud. Berger does not hold back on the horrors of war (without going to “gorey”) and delivers a moody, bleak and important film.
Baumer plays Felix with an innocent sincerity that gives way to resolute abandonment of hope as the bleakness of the affair drags on. His futility is, then, juxtaposed against German envoy Matthias Erzberger (Daniel Bruhl) who is trying to negotiate a surrender with the French. The building frustration of both men are clearly shown growing as the film elapses.
And that is another strong suit about this film - it shows the situations, the hopelessness and negativity of war without having to “tell” or comment about it. The pictures are all one needs to know.
An anti-war film of the highest order, ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT is a must see - the best adaptation of this classic novel ever.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Totally Onix-pected
Before we begin, I must apologise for the bad pun, but if any franchise deserves a pun for their first live-action movie adaptation, it’s Pokémon. Growing up in 90s Britain, Pokémon was absolutely everywhere. You couldn’t turn a street corner without seeing Pikachu and his sidekick Ash (or should that be the other way around) emblazoned across every toy shop window or on every bus. It was a true phenomenon that took the world by storm like nothing else.
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated West Side Story (2021) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Very Good...but could have (SHOULD HAVE) been GREAT
One of the biggest disappointments in watching a Motion Picture is when a Film has all of the ingredients to be a GREAT film, but is knocked off this tier by one flaw - and sometimes - is knocked down to merely good by an egregious flaw.
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The original is better
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing Emma into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, Emma is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of Emma has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as Mary Poppins or Nurse Matilda.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing Emma into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, Emma is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of Emma has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as Mary Poppins or Nurse Matilda.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Walking Dead - Season 1 in TV
Jul 15, 2017
Gripping story (2 more)
Casting for the main characters was good
Dixon brothers are a great addition to the story
Bad special effects (2 more)
Characters actions sometimes don't make a lot of sense
A lot of filler characters and plot lines
Zombies in Atlanta
As a long time fan of The Walking Dead, including the comics, the books, and the video games, the television series did alright. I liked the casting for the main characters, much of the main story was kept loyal to the source material, and there were a few new characters and surprises added to the show.
There are a lot of new characters added to the story, the highlights being Daryl and Merle Dixon. The rest were easily forgettable and felt like filler characters to feed to the meat grinder to get a reaction out of audiences. This was sort of a negative to me because I would hardly have a chance to like or care about these new characters before they were killed off. This makes character deaths in the series have a little less impact.
The story deviates from the comics in both good and bad ways. I liked that a few character arcs were switched around to keep the story fresh for folks that have already read the comics. I liked that one of my least favorite characters from the comics, Carol, was changed in a way that makes her character more compelling.
My only other complaint would be the filler. It seemed like the story kept getting off track and moving away from the main conflict (Rick and Shane) pretty often, which makes the story feel sloppy. I don't know if it's just me, but I just didn't like the story arc with the CDC. It was promising and was interesting at first, but it became predictable pretty quickly and everything about it was just too ridiculous to me. The special effects were bad and it just made little to no sense the way it happened.
I wanted to like this first season more and be blown away but overall it was okay/good to me. I think it sets things up well and piqued my interest enough to continue to the next season. For zombie fans, it's definitely a series worth checking out. For those already well acquainted with the story via the comics, don't expect a faithful adaptation and be prepared for the usual tv tropes and silly plot filler.
There are a lot of new characters added to the story, the highlights being Daryl and Merle Dixon. The rest were easily forgettable and felt like filler characters to feed to the meat grinder to get a reaction out of audiences. This was sort of a negative to me because I would hardly have a chance to like or care about these new characters before they were killed off. This makes character deaths in the series have a little less impact.
The story deviates from the comics in both good and bad ways. I liked that a few character arcs were switched around to keep the story fresh for folks that have already read the comics. I liked that one of my least favorite characters from the comics, Carol, was changed in a way that makes her character more compelling.
My only other complaint would be the filler. It seemed like the story kept getting off track and moving away from the main conflict (Rick and Shane) pretty often, which makes the story feel sloppy. I don't know if it's just me, but I just didn't like the story arc with the CDC. It was promising and was interesting at first, but it became predictable pretty quickly and everything about it was just too ridiculous to me. The special effects were bad and it just made little to no sense the way it happened.
I wanted to like this first season more and be blown away but overall it was okay/good to me. I think it sets things up well and piqued my interest enough to continue to the next season. For zombie fans, it's definitely a series worth checking out. For those already well acquainted with the story via the comics, don't expect a faithful adaptation and be prepared for the usual tv tropes and silly plot filler.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Watchmen (2009) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Director's Cut
Contains spoilers, click to show
I first watched the theatrical cut back in 2009 and though I was impressed, I knew that it required a second viewing to be judged fairly. This didn't happen until a couple of months ago when I was treated to the Director's Cut, a version extended by approximately 25 minutes.
The funny thing about this cut is that it is hard to see the joins, which is obviously very good, as a lot of special editions have scenes shoehorned in and held together with sellotape. But this was a smooth three hour epic, not so much redefining the genre but demonstrating how indeed, it can be done.
That in many ways was my problem the first time, that I was expecting more thrills and spills often associated with the comic genre, but was given an intellectual, character drama, played and directed so very well, that it is hard to peg this in to any particular slot. This is primarily a drama, and as such, is light on action but heavy on emotion and melodrama.
The cinematography is well conceived, though the whole film plays out in a relatively and surprisingly classical manner, sometimes at odds with story and visuals which they are showcasing.
The action, though brutal and at times rightly so, is showcasing the brutality of vigilantism, and at others, leading into a splatter territory. But on repeat viewings this holds up and once you accept that it is what it is, then this is a first class film, as well as a crackingly smooth director's cut, expanding the 153 minute version with ease, adding a few scenes to gain more context, and others snugly fitting into the original mold.
This is a fully developed adaptation of an iconic graphic novel from the 1980′s, though in that sense it is lacking some of the context of that day, but still resonates in many others. I would not have known much about this story if it had not been adapted for the screen and this is a faithful one, but I can understand the view of those who say that it is 'too' faithful, as this could have done well to employ a little more theatrical license, maybe sacrificing some of the accuracy in favor of the truth of the story.
In the end, this is what it is, and it is something special and I believe, potentially timeless
The funny thing about this cut is that it is hard to see the joins, which is obviously very good, as a lot of special editions have scenes shoehorned in and held together with sellotape. But this was a smooth three hour epic, not so much redefining the genre but demonstrating how indeed, it can be done.
That in many ways was my problem the first time, that I was expecting more thrills and spills often associated with the comic genre, but was given an intellectual, character drama, played and directed so very well, that it is hard to peg this in to any particular slot. This is primarily a drama, and as such, is light on action but heavy on emotion and melodrama.
The cinematography is well conceived, though the whole film plays out in a relatively and surprisingly classical manner, sometimes at odds with story and visuals which they are showcasing.
The action, though brutal and at times rightly so, is showcasing the brutality of vigilantism, and at others, leading into a splatter territory. But on repeat viewings this holds up and once you accept that it is what it is, then this is a first class film, as well as a crackingly smooth director's cut, expanding the 153 minute version with ease, adding a few scenes to gain more context, and others snugly fitting into the original mold.
This is a fully developed adaptation of an iconic graphic novel from the 1980′s, though in that sense it is lacking some of the context of that day, but still resonates in many others. I would not have known much about this story if it had not been adapted for the screen and this is a faithful one, but I can understand the view of those who say that it is 'too' faithful, as this could have done well to employ a little more theatrical license, maybe sacrificing some of the accuracy in favor of the truth of the story.
In the end, this is what it is, and it is something special and I believe, potentially timeless