Search
Search results
Laura Doe (1350 KP) rated On the Way to the Wedding (Bridgertons, #8) in Books
Jan 11, 2022
Another brilliantly written Bridgerton book. This one has all the elements of a thriller. Blackmail, treason, someone showing up to stop a wedding by proposing to the bride, what more could you want in a book?
This book follows Gregory and his pursuit of love, which he firmly believes in, thanks to all seven of his siblings being married and blissfully happy and in love with their chosen spouses. We start the book as he runs into a wedding and proposes to the bride and the chapter ends before we find out both who it is and what she says. It takes about half the book to find out who the bride is, and then another few chapters to find out her answer. The suspense kept me reading as I needed to find out what happened.
This book, although obviously similar to the rest of the series, was a lot faster paced and reminded me more of a thriller (without the darkness of a thriller) with the situations that the characters found themselves in.
I think that Gregory’s story may have moved up to one of my favourite Bridgerton books, although this seems to change with every book I read from the series. But this definitely seemed more like the type of book I usually read and I loved every minute of it.
As I started reading, I realised that the previous seven books didn’t really tell us a lot about Gregory, and I would put him in the same category as Francesca was when I started reading When He Was Wicked. But it was good to read about him and learn about his character so late on in the series as it meant that you didn’t really have any preconceptions about his character and how you believe he should behave in the pursuit of love which happened with all of his other siblings (again with exception of Francesca).
I really will be sad to say goodbye to this family when I read the final book in the Bridgerton series, but I hope that the Netflix adaption stays true to the tones of the books and that we get an adaptation of each book as I believe they will work very well on screen as well as in print.
This book follows Gregory and his pursuit of love, which he firmly believes in, thanks to all seven of his siblings being married and blissfully happy and in love with their chosen spouses. We start the book as he runs into a wedding and proposes to the bride and the chapter ends before we find out both who it is and what she says. It takes about half the book to find out who the bride is, and then another few chapters to find out her answer. The suspense kept me reading as I needed to find out what happened.
This book, although obviously similar to the rest of the series, was a lot faster paced and reminded me more of a thriller (without the darkness of a thriller) with the situations that the characters found themselves in.
I think that Gregory’s story may have moved up to one of my favourite Bridgerton books, although this seems to change with every book I read from the series. But this definitely seemed more like the type of book I usually read and I loved every minute of it.
As I started reading, I realised that the previous seven books didn’t really tell us a lot about Gregory, and I would put him in the same category as Francesca was when I started reading When He Was Wicked. But it was good to read about him and learn about his character so late on in the series as it meant that you didn’t really have any preconceptions about his character and how you believe he should behave in the pursuit of love which happened with all of his other siblings (again with exception of Francesca).
I really will be sad to say goodbye to this family when I read the final book in the Bridgerton series, but I hope that the Netflix adaption stays true to the tones of the books and that we get an adaptation of each book as I believe they will work very well on screen as well as in print.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Tim Burton and the flying elephant
If you had told me 15 years ago that Tim Burton would be directing a live-action adaptation of Disney’s classic, Dumbo I would’ve been overwhelmed with excitement. The director, famed for his unique sense of gothic style and visual flair has directed some of the best films ever made.
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Making films from books has always been a tricky proposition. For every film adaptation that hits it big such as Jaws, Lord of the Rings and The Silence of the Lambs, there are several that fail to work or are downright disasters such as The Bonfire of the Vanities.
In the film The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the late Douglas Adams first book in his classic series has finally arrived on the big screen after many delays getting started and a successful version on PBS.
The film stars Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent, a simple, easy going fellow whose entire goal in life is to stop the demolition of his beloved home from those who want to put a new highway in its current location.
As Arthur attempts to block the demolition, his good friend Ford Prefect (Mos Def), arrives and stalls the demolition with free beer for the work crew. Thinking he has been saved, Arthur is puzzled when Ford takes him to a local pub and buys rounds for the entire pub, saying the world is ending in a few minutes.
Ford in reality is an alien visiting the Earth and learns that the Earth is about to be destroyed to make way for a new galactic expressway. Before he knows what has happened, Arthur is whisked away seconds before the destruction of the Earth by Ford as they end up on a ship of the demolition fleet.
After a series of bizarre events and a narrow escape, Ford and Arthur end up on a passing ship that has been stolen by galactic president Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), and Trillian (Zooey Deschanel), who just happens to be the lady of Arthur’s dreams and who is also unaware that the Earth has been destroyed in the short amount of time since she left Earth to explore with Zaphod.
As if this was not enough, the ship also has a depressed android named Marvin (Warwick Davis and voiced by Allan Rickman).
It is at this point that the film goes horribly wrong as the amusing and interesting setup quickly goes nowhere. While the crew is sent on a series of quests, each becomes less interesting than the one before it, and the very bland production values of the film are exposed. The sets are very basic and look as if they were borrowed from many of the budget driven British Sci-Fi that frequents PBS. Somehow the idea of an alien room being nothing but a rusty wall and a slapped up sign just does not cut it for me. At times I thought I was watching a home video production done by fans or another late night B movie rather than a major studio summer release.
As bad as the sets were what is even more amazing was the at times laughable attempts at visual effects where it was obvious that the actors were standing in front of screens as the matting lines were visible.
I tried to put a lot of this off to the idea that the film was trying to be quirky in keeping with the book, but quirky is not an excuse for underwhelming effects, basic sets, and lousy costuming and make up effects as I half expected to see zippers on the costumes of many aliens that looked like they were cobbled from parts at a hardware store.
So now that I have covered my issues with the look of the film, let’s look at the story itself. In a word: boring. I could not believe how dull and lazy the film became, and how the staff seemed to be going through the motions. The cast has zero chemistry and Rockwell is so frantic that his character is annoying to watch. After five minutes of his rock star in the spotlight style shtick, I wanted to strangle the character or at least get him on some serious medication.
Director Garth Jennings also has many scenes that simply go nowhere or drag on only to cut at odd times resulting in a complete and utter lack of pacing.
I am a big fan of the book series and I had very high hopes for this film. Sadly the disaster that resulted may very well have Douglas Adams spinning in his grave as his classic work was destroyed. I have to wonder how much of his original draft for the script that was used as the basis for the film survived.
While extreme die hard fans may enjoy the film, even they are likely to be disappointed and I can only hope that if they try to make the next book in the series, “The Restaurant at the End of the Universe”, they do a much better job then this effort, as this is one awful film adaptation.
In the film The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the late Douglas Adams first book in his classic series has finally arrived on the big screen after many delays getting started and a successful version on PBS.
The film stars Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent, a simple, easy going fellow whose entire goal in life is to stop the demolition of his beloved home from those who want to put a new highway in its current location.
As Arthur attempts to block the demolition, his good friend Ford Prefect (Mos Def), arrives and stalls the demolition with free beer for the work crew. Thinking he has been saved, Arthur is puzzled when Ford takes him to a local pub and buys rounds for the entire pub, saying the world is ending in a few minutes.
Ford in reality is an alien visiting the Earth and learns that the Earth is about to be destroyed to make way for a new galactic expressway. Before he knows what has happened, Arthur is whisked away seconds before the destruction of the Earth by Ford as they end up on a ship of the demolition fleet.
After a series of bizarre events and a narrow escape, Ford and Arthur end up on a passing ship that has been stolen by galactic president Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), and Trillian (Zooey Deschanel), who just happens to be the lady of Arthur’s dreams and who is also unaware that the Earth has been destroyed in the short amount of time since she left Earth to explore with Zaphod.
As if this was not enough, the ship also has a depressed android named Marvin (Warwick Davis and voiced by Allan Rickman).
It is at this point that the film goes horribly wrong as the amusing and interesting setup quickly goes nowhere. While the crew is sent on a series of quests, each becomes less interesting than the one before it, and the very bland production values of the film are exposed. The sets are very basic and look as if they were borrowed from many of the budget driven British Sci-Fi that frequents PBS. Somehow the idea of an alien room being nothing but a rusty wall and a slapped up sign just does not cut it for me. At times I thought I was watching a home video production done by fans or another late night B movie rather than a major studio summer release.
As bad as the sets were what is even more amazing was the at times laughable attempts at visual effects where it was obvious that the actors were standing in front of screens as the matting lines were visible.
I tried to put a lot of this off to the idea that the film was trying to be quirky in keeping with the book, but quirky is not an excuse for underwhelming effects, basic sets, and lousy costuming and make up effects as I half expected to see zippers on the costumes of many aliens that looked like they were cobbled from parts at a hardware store.
So now that I have covered my issues with the look of the film, let’s look at the story itself. In a word: boring. I could not believe how dull and lazy the film became, and how the staff seemed to be going through the motions. The cast has zero chemistry and Rockwell is so frantic that his character is annoying to watch. After five minutes of his rock star in the spotlight style shtick, I wanted to strangle the character or at least get him on some serious medication.
Director Garth Jennings also has many scenes that simply go nowhere or drag on only to cut at odd times resulting in a complete and utter lack of pacing.
I am a big fan of the book series and I had very high hopes for this film. Sadly the disaster that resulted may very well have Douglas Adams spinning in his grave as his classic work was destroyed. I have to wonder how much of his original draft for the script that was used as the basis for the film survived.
While extreme die hard fans may enjoy the film, even they are likely to be disappointed and I can only hope that if they try to make the next book in the series, “The Restaurant at the End of the Universe”, they do a much better job then this effort, as this is one awful film adaptation.
You will never be too old to read a Roald Dahl book!
I really enjoyed this book, it was funny but also sad at times.
Matilda is a young girl of 5 who is ignored and not really wanted by her family, she is very different from them, her father a used car salesman and a dodgy one at that, a mum who plays bingo, self obsessed and dishes up microwavable meals. Matilda has a thirst for knowledge and unknown to her parents she takes herself to the local library and teaches herself to read. Once she has devoured the children’s section she starts on adult books. At 5 years old Matilda has read probably more fiction than most adults.
She is finally sent to school and befriends Lavender and also captivates the heart of her teacher Miss Honey, however school is not all rosy as Matilda was hoping, there is a nasty headteacher called Miss Trunchball, an ex-olympian for the hammer throw, she has a low tolerance for children and practices with some of them.
Me and my daughter both thoroughly enjoyed this book and the favorite scene has to be with Bruce Bogtrotter and the chocolate cake. I love with Roald Dahl books is that the horrible characters i.e Miss Truchball get their comeuppence. The relationship between Miss Honey and Matilda is so lovely, they have such great outlooks on life even though they have been treated fairly poorly as children. Miss Honey is a very gentle character with a lot of love to give, as soon as she realises that Matilda is a gifted child she wants to help her with her studies and get her the level of education that she requires.
The only thing that let this book down was near the end when she is able to use her powers and the fact that her parents are leaving, it didn’t explain why they were leaving and her use of powers was very rushed.
I would have to say on this instance that I do find the movie adaptation to be better than the book, I think it is explained better and not as rushed, however saying that, in the book I found it interesting to read how she felt when using her powers. My Daughter who is 8 really enjoyed this book, she really enjoyed Miss Trunchball and as there is a lot of dialogue in the book, she was reading aloud with a nasty voice.
I really enjoyed this book, it was funny but also sad at times.
Matilda is a young girl of 5 who is ignored and not really wanted by her family, she is very different from them, her father a used car salesman and a dodgy one at that, a mum who plays bingo, self obsessed and dishes up microwavable meals. Matilda has a thirst for knowledge and unknown to her parents she takes herself to the local library and teaches herself to read. Once she has devoured the children’s section she starts on adult books. At 5 years old Matilda has read probably more fiction than most adults.
She is finally sent to school and befriends Lavender and also captivates the heart of her teacher Miss Honey, however school is not all rosy as Matilda was hoping, there is a nasty headteacher called Miss Trunchball, an ex-olympian for the hammer throw, she has a low tolerance for children and practices with some of them.
Me and my daughter both thoroughly enjoyed this book and the favorite scene has to be with Bruce Bogtrotter and the chocolate cake. I love with Roald Dahl books is that the horrible characters i.e Miss Truchball get their comeuppence. The relationship between Miss Honey and Matilda is so lovely, they have such great outlooks on life even though they have been treated fairly poorly as children. Miss Honey is a very gentle character with a lot of love to give, as soon as she realises that Matilda is a gifted child she wants to help her with her studies and get her the level of education that she requires.
The only thing that let this book down was near the end when she is able to use her powers and the fact that her parents are leaving, it didn’t explain why they were leaving and her use of powers was very rushed.
I would have to say on this instance that I do find the movie adaptation to be better than the book, I think it is explained better and not as rushed, however saying that, in the book I found it interesting to read how she felt when using her powers. My Daughter who is 8 really enjoyed this book, she really enjoyed Miss Trunchball and as there is a lot of dialogue in the book, she was reading aloud with a nasty voice.
Leigh J (71 KP) rated Dreamcatcher (2003) in Movies
Nov 24, 2019 (Updated Nov 24, 2019)
Stephen King does The Thing
Contains spoilers, click to show
4 friends make their yearly trek to a Cabin in a remote part of Maine to eat, drink, be merry and Hunt. However Jonesy, Pete, Beaver and Henry are not just any ordinary group of friends. For as long as they can remember, there has been a psychic link between them, strengthened further by the addition of Duddits, a mentally disabled young boy who they rescued from bullies one day after school when they were all kids. Their link as a group of 5 is so strong that they even rescue a young girl who has been missing for a while. Now the boys have grown up and this trip is their chance to let loose and blow off some steam, minus Duddits who is still mentally a young boy. Whilst out hunting, they come across a distressed and dazed man who tells them he got lost in the woods whilst out with his Hunting group... and the man is obviously ill. He has a suspicious injury to his face and he can't stop burping and farting, which are so horrible that they make the guys nauseous. Soon enough, they guys discover the man is in a blood soaked Bathroom, dead, and an Alien Weasel looking creature thrashing around in the toilet bowl. And there's a red fungus growing on (and in) everything. Could this really be an Alien invasion? Can the 4 friends strike back against these otherworldly enemies? And what will happen when the most malevolent one of these Aliens decides that Jonesy would be a great place for him to be able to wreak havoc from?
Dreamcatcher is an adaptation of the Book of the same name from Stephen King. I'm now VERY happy I read the Book before I watched this Movie as some things in the Book don't come across that clear in the Movie. Not a lot of people enjoy the Book and feel it's quite out there for Stephen King but I really enjoyed it, and the same can be said for the Movie! The story is really captivating, especially the friendships between the guys and the interaction between Jonesy and Mr Gray (his new invader) and I really appreciated the very "Thing" quality this Movie has (I literally have no idea why it reminds me of The Thing but it just does!) Definitely worth a watch, but it's not going to be for everyone as I would recommend reading the Book first.
Dreamcatcher is an adaptation of the Book of the same name from Stephen King. I'm now VERY happy I read the Book before I watched this Movie as some things in the Book don't come across that clear in the Movie. Not a lot of people enjoy the Book and feel it's quite out there for Stephen King but I really enjoyed it, and the same can be said for the Movie! The story is really captivating, especially the friendships between the guys and the interaction between Jonesy and Mr Gray (his new invader) and I really appreciated the very "Thing" quality this Movie has (I literally have no idea why it reminds me of The Thing but it just does!) Definitely worth a watch, but it's not going to be for everyone as I would recommend reading the Book first.
JT (287 KP) rated Where the Wild Things Are (2009) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Let’s face it, as children we have all been there, we went a bit wild at some point in our life! We made up our own games and talked to people that we knew were not there, but for us it felt like another world.
It was a world that we could escape to, forget our fears and problems. For Max (Max Records) it is the same, a child with a vivid imagination he is sent to bed without any tea and so he runs away. Climbing into a boat he sails off and lands on an island full of large, if somewhat scarily looking cuddly creatures that make Max their king.
The film itself is based on the book by Maurice Sendak which if anyone had any sort of a childhood it will have been on their book case. The adaptation from book to film is brilliant, although there are a few things missing out.
There will be no forest growing in Max’s room, or the appearance of an aggravated sea monster which rears up beneath Max’s little yacht as he approaches the island. If you look closely enough at the film, and the world and creatures that Max has created you will realise that each creature is a character trait of Max himself.
His main friend on the island is Carol (voiced by James Gandolfini) who is Max’s creativeness. As Carol is closest to Max, he also plays the monster who presents the greatest physical challenges, and the anger that threatens to consume him.
KW, is Max’s love for his family in particular his mother and sister, the two people who give him the most structure in his life and who help to become the support that his absent father can’t give him.
The other personalities are Judith (Catherine O’Hara) who is his spitefulness, Ira (Forest Whitaker) his calm side, Alexander (Paul Dano) his insecurity, Douglas (Chris Cooper) his reason, and the mysterious unnamed bull his sadness.
The setting of the island is nothing short of picturesque, with a changing in Max’s mood twinned with the surrounding atmosphere. One minute it’s snowing and then blossom is falling. The overall feel of the film is juvenile, there is the odd way in which the creatures all like to sleep in a pile, to the big dirt clog fight that inevitably ends up with someone getting hurt.
Where The Wild Things Are is a film for anyone who has ever felt like re-living past childhood memories, the ones that our closest to our wild hearts.
It was a world that we could escape to, forget our fears and problems. For Max (Max Records) it is the same, a child with a vivid imagination he is sent to bed without any tea and so he runs away. Climbing into a boat he sails off and lands on an island full of large, if somewhat scarily looking cuddly creatures that make Max their king.
The film itself is based on the book by Maurice Sendak which if anyone had any sort of a childhood it will have been on their book case. The adaptation from book to film is brilliant, although there are a few things missing out.
There will be no forest growing in Max’s room, or the appearance of an aggravated sea monster which rears up beneath Max’s little yacht as he approaches the island. If you look closely enough at the film, and the world and creatures that Max has created you will realise that each creature is a character trait of Max himself.
His main friend on the island is Carol (voiced by James Gandolfini) who is Max’s creativeness. As Carol is closest to Max, he also plays the monster who presents the greatest physical challenges, and the anger that threatens to consume him.
KW, is Max’s love for his family in particular his mother and sister, the two people who give him the most structure in his life and who help to become the support that his absent father can’t give him.
The other personalities are Judith (Catherine O’Hara) who is his spitefulness, Ira (Forest Whitaker) his calm side, Alexander (Paul Dano) his insecurity, Douglas (Chris Cooper) his reason, and the mysterious unnamed bull his sadness.
The setting of the island is nothing short of picturesque, with a changing in Max’s mood twinned with the surrounding atmosphere. One minute it’s snowing and then blossom is falling. The overall feel of the film is juvenile, there is the odd way in which the creatures all like to sleep in a pile, to the big dirt clog fight that inevitably ends up with someone getting hurt.
Where The Wild Things Are is a film for anyone who has ever felt like re-living past childhood memories, the ones that our closest to our wild hearts.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Rock the Kasbah (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Music is a language that transcends race, gender, age, and nationality. It is timeless. It is transformative. Music has the power to shape and redefine culture. In Rock the Kasbah, Bill Murray plays Richie Lanz, a washed up Rock manager who seeks to bring one of his acts to Afghanistan as part of the USO tour. Within the first day of arrival, his plans are unraveled as his singer (Zooey Deschanel) panics and runs off with his money and passport in order to return back to America.
After meeting a myriad of characters (Bruce Willis, Kate Hudson. Danny McBride) in Kabul, he is presented with a new opportunity to introduce the world to a true talent. He discovers a young Pashtun girl with an amazing voice who dreams of being able to compete on “Afghan Star,” a musical competition show similar to “American Idol.” Cultural norms forbid her from singing and participating in the competition which demonstrate the complexity of Afghan culture, history, and politics. Understanding the threat to himself and Salima (Leem Lubany), Richie arranges for her to appear on the show, defying traditions and customs.
The film itself is a decent adaptation of the real story captured in the documentary Afghan Star which examines the life of Setara who must go into hiding because of her appearance in the competition. Rock the Kasbah has moments of genuine humor which fully utilizes Bill Murray’s true talents. Unfortunately, there are points where the plot and the storyline does not seem to fit together seamlessly. One great aspect of the film is its use of music to demonstrate the reach that it has across cultural lines. The love of music and artistic expression which had been severely restricted during the years of Taliban rule and Mujahedeen influence survived and is emblematic of how the people and the culture is much more complex and relatable than many would assume. This film goes beyond a story of a young singer trying to express herself and a manager trying to reclaim the glory of years ago. It is about the culture, history, and political framework of Afghanistan and the Afghan people.
It promotes them in a more positive light without relegating them to being a monolithic culture and people. It provides more insight into the circumstances that many of the people both in the cities and the tribal regions deal with. Audiences will be satisfied Rock the Kasbah as it is a musical and comedic showcase. They may even find themselves singing “Wild World” long after the credits roll.
After meeting a myriad of characters (Bruce Willis, Kate Hudson. Danny McBride) in Kabul, he is presented with a new opportunity to introduce the world to a true talent. He discovers a young Pashtun girl with an amazing voice who dreams of being able to compete on “Afghan Star,” a musical competition show similar to “American Idol.” Cultural norms forbid her from singing and participating in the competition which demonstrate the complexity of Afghan culture, history, and politics. Understanding the threat to himself and Salima (Leem Lubany), Richie arranges for her to appear on the show, defying traditions and customs.
The film itself is a decent adaptation of the real story captured in the documentary Afghan Star which examines the life of Setara who must go into hiding because of her appearance in the competition. Rock the Kasbah has moments of genuine humor which fully utilizes Bill Murray’s true talents. Unfortunately, there are points where the plot and the storyline does not seem to fit together seamlessly. One great aspect of the film is its use of music to demonstrate the reach that it has across cultural lines. The love of music and artistic expression which had been severely restricted during the years of Taliban rule and Mujahedeen influence survived and is emblematic of how the people and the culture is much more complex and relatable than many would assume. This film goes beyond a story of a young singer trying to express herself and a manager trying to reclaim the glory of years ago. It is about the culture, history, and political framework of Afghanistan and the Afghan people.
It promotes them in a more positive light without relegating them to being a monolithic culture and people. It provides more insight into the circumstances that many of the people both in the cities and the tribal regions deal with. Audiences will be satisfied Rock the Kasbah as it is a musical and comedic showcase. They may even find themselves singing “Wild World” long after the credits roll.
Amerzone: The Explorer's Legacy (Universal)
Games and Entertainment
App
Before dying, the explorer Emile Valembois tells you about the most amazing expedition of his...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Nov 1, 2020)
A Really Good Remake
Pet Semetary is a 2019 supernatural horror movie directed by Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer. The movie was written by Jeff Buhler with screen story by Matt Greenberg. It is a remake/reboot of the original 1989 film adaptation of the 1983 Stephen King novel. Starring Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz, and John Lithgow.
Moving to the small town of Ludlow, Maine with his family: wife, Rachel (Amy Seimetz), children, Ellie (Jete Laurence) and Gage (Hugo & Lucas Lavoie), and Church, Ellie's cat, Louis Creed takes a job at the university's hospital. Ellie stumbles upon a procession of children, while exploring the nearby woods of their new home, who are taking a dead dog to a pet cemetery. Their neighbor, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), finds Ellie climbing a large stack of branches forming a wall and warns Rachel and Ellie not to venture out alone as the woods can be dangerous.. The following day, Louis fails to save a student Victor Pascow (Obssa Ahmed) fatally injured from a car accident, and is left shaken. That night Louis meets Pascow in a vivid dream, where he is lead to the pet cemetery and warned not to "venture beyond". When Louis awakens he is disturbed to find his bed sheets and feet, muddy and dirty suggesting his "vision" could be more than just a bad dream.
As far as remakes go this one was really good. Especially for the horror genre. I mean I can't tell you how many remakes/reboots I've seen that just bomb and don't do the original justice. This one however seemed to keep the original in mind, while still making changes to keep it fresh and relatively different. That being said I do feel it was a bit over-hyped and didn't live up to certain expectations. To me it was a very creepy movie and had me wanting to cover my eyes in one part as memories from the original played back in my head. The sounds of the character Rachel's sister calling out to her got goosebumps on my forearms. Those parts were very unsettling to me but I didn't feel enough was "scary". I really enjoyed the twists and changes or differences from the original. They were welcome and kept it from being an exact replica and a copy of the original. As another critic stated, Jeffrey M. Anderson-Common Sense Media, the film was "...effectively unsettling, focusing on the characters and their understandable emotions rather than on overt gore and FX." I give it a 7/10.
Moving to the small town of Ludlow, Maine with his family: wife, Rachel (Amy Seimetz), children, Ellie (Jete Laurence) and Gage (Hugo & Lucas Lavoie), and Church, Ellie's cat, Louis Creed takes a job at the university's hospital. Ellie stumbles upon a procession of children, while exploring the nearby woods of their new home, who are taking a dead dog to a pet cemetery. Their neighbor, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), finds Ellie climbing a large stack of branches forming a wall and warns Rachel and Ellie not to venture out alone as the woods can be dangerous.. The following day, Louis fails to save a student Victor Pascow (Obssa Ahmed) fatally injured from a car accident, and is left shaken. That night Louis meets Pascow in a vivid dream, where he is lead to the pet cemetery and warned not to "venture beyond". When Louis awakens he is disturbed to find his bed sheets and feet, muddy and dirty suggesting his "vision" could be more than just a bad dream.
As far as remakes go this one was really good. Especially for the horror genre. I mean I can't tell you how many remakes/reboots I've seen that just bomb and don't do the original justice. This one however seemed to keep the original in mind, while still making changes to keep it fresh and relatively different. That being said I do feel it was a bit over-hyped and didn't live up to certain expectations. To me it was a very creepy movie and had me wanting to cover my eyes in one part as memories from the original played back in my head. The sounds of the character Rachel's sister calling out to her got goosebumps on my forearms. Those parts were very unsettling to me but I didn't feel enough was "scary". I really enjoyed the twists and changes or differences from the original. They were welcome and kept it from being an exact replica and a copy of the original. As another critic stated, Jeffrey M. Anderson-Common Sense Media, the film was "...effectively unsettling, focusing on the characters and their understandable emotions rather than on overt gore and FX." I give it a 7/10.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020 (Updated Oct 28, 2020)
The Vampire Among Them
Nosferatu The Vampyre- is a very slow movie. Very slow, for 90% of the time nothing happens and when some does happens its only for three minutes max. I always wanted to watch the oringal, never got a chance to, hopefully soon i will. As for this remake its so-so.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.
The plot: Jonathan Harker is sent away to Count Dracula's castle to sell him a house in Virna, where he lives. But Count Dracula is a vampire, an undead ghoul living off men's blood. Inspired by a photograph of Lucy Harker, Jonathan's wife, Dracula moves to Virna, bringing with him death and plague... An unusually contemplative version of Dracula, in which the vampire bears the cross of not being able to get old and die.
There are two different versions of the film, one in which the actors speak English, and one in which they speak German.
Herzog's production of Nosferatu was very well received by critics and enjoyed a comfortable degree of commercial success.
The film also marks the second of five collaborations between director Herzog and actor Kinski.
While the basic story is derived from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula, director Herzog made the 1979 film primarily as an homage remake of F. W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu (1922), which differs somewhat from Stoker's original work. The makers of the earlier film could not obtain the rights for a film adaptation of Dracula, so they changed a number of minor details and character names in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid copyright infringement on the intellectual property owned (at the time) by Stoker's widow Florence. A lawsuit was filed, resulting in an order for the destruction of all prints of the film. Some prints survived, and were restored after Florence Stoker had died and the copyright had expired.
By the 1960s and early 1970s the original silent returned to circulation, and was enjoyed by a new generation of moviegoers.
In 1979, by the very day the copyright for Dracula had entered the public domain, Herzog proceeded with his updated version of the classic German film, which could now include the original character names.
Herzog saw his film as a parable about the fragility of order in a staid, bourgeois town. "It is more than a horror film", he says. "Nosferatu is not a monster, but an ambivalent, masterful force of change. When the plague threatens, people throw their property into the streets, they discard their bourgeois trappings. A re‐evaluation
of life and its meaning takes place."
Like i said its a decent movie.