Search
Search results

Lenard (726 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Apr 1, 2019
While in some ways a strange marriage, Dumbo has several Tim Burton elements: an evil rich guy, Michael Keaton/Danny DeVito/Eva Green, outsiders, people who don't get a lot of sun even though they live in a traveling circus. The most Tim Burton thing about it is when Dreamland is engulfed in smoke surrounded by dark clouds and Nightmare Island. The rest of the film is mostly live action Disney. Dumbo has Bambi-like doe eyes and except for the evil wannabe tycoon the humans are sentimental and protective of the kids.

David McK (3540 KP) rated Outlaw (The Outlaw Chronicles, #1) in Books
Jan 30, 2019
"Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Riding throught the Glenn
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, and his bunch of blood-thirsty murderous outlaws ..."
Doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?
"Outlaw" is the story of Robin Hood, told from the perspective of Alan Dale. Like Bernard Cornwell's series of books about King Arthur (indeed, my copy of the book even had a "As good as Bernard Cornwell or your money back" sticker on it), Outlaw is a more earthy, more 'real', telling of the famous tale. All the famous characters are here: Robin Hood, Maid Marie-Anne (Marion), Little John, Friar Tuck, Guy of Gisbourne, and (obviously) Alan Dale himself.
Forget the recent BBC adaptation, or even the '91 film starring a not-very-English Kevin Costner; this is more what Robin Hood would have been like (if he ever existed) than the over-romanticised legendary figure.
Worth a read? If you like Cornwell (or Simon Scarrow's) style of historical fiction, then my answer is a definite yes.
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, and his bunch of blood-thirsty murderous outlaws ..."
Doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?
"Outlaw" is the story of Robin Hood, told from the perspective of Alan Dale. Like Bernard Cornwell's series of books about King Arthur (indeed, my copy of the book even had a "As good as Bernard Cornwell or your money back" sticker on it), Outlaw is a more earthy, more 'real', telling of the famous tale. All the famous characters are here: Robin Hood, Maid Marie-Anne (Marion), Little John, Friar Tuck, Guy of Gisbourne, and (obviously) Alan Dale himself.
Forget the recent BBC adaptation, or even the '91 film starring a not-very-English Kevin Costner; this is more what Robin Hood would have been like (if he ever existed) than the over-romanticised legendary figure.
Worth a read? If you like Cornwell (or Simon Scarrow's) style of historical fiction, then my answer is a definite yes.

Natasha Khan recommended Negro Prison Blues and Songs by Alan Lomax in Music (curated)

Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Die Hard (1988) in Movies
Jan 16, 2021 (Updated Jan 17, 2021)
The casting (3 more)
Plot
SFX
Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman in general
Welcome to the party pal!
In 1988 Hollywood Gambled on a lesser known tv star for it's high budget action thriller.
Laughed at when hearing their choice of actor, it was the 80's and when you heard action movie you'd immediately think "Schwarzenegger or stallone, maybe even Kurt Russel" Hollywood wanted obe of the bigger stars and reached out to them, but they all turned it down so average Joe became their Vacationing NYPD hero, so they stuck with the man known as Bruce Willis!
Whilst Visiting his estranged wife at the (fictional) Nakatomi plaza (Fox plaza) the building and it's workforce are quickly taken hostage.
Enter John McClain (willis) a rough looking, smooth talking (the guy literally has a smooth/relaxed voice) witty, sarcastic NYPD cop who just can't seem to catch a break.
Armed with everything I wrote above, aswell as bare feet, air-vents, and a fire hose, McClain pursues the terrorists in an action packed attempt at proving his wife wrong and maybe saving a few people in the process.
Die Hard is a classic 80's action epic that spawned many terrible sequels (excluding 'with a vengeance') that we still paid to watch aswell as countless knockoffs.
Did you know?
. The team behind die hard was laughed at because of their lead choice (you should do I just told you)
. The movie was almost shut down because they used a real life helicopter around the building whilst local residents tried to sleep causing an outrage and filed complaints.
. miniature explosions were set of atop the building for affect.
. Alan Rickman was lied to about when he'd be dropped from the "building" the capture a natural look of fear (about a 30ft drop).
. It was Alan Rickmans first movie ( what a way to hit the ground and keep running)
. A replica model of the building was built to film the remaining explosions on the building.
. The original Vest (tank top) is on display in the Smithsonian.
.the movie was filmed during official construction of the fox plaza aka nakatomi plaza.
Laughed at when hearing their choice of actor, it was the 80's and when you heard action movie you'd immediately think "Schwarzenegger or stallone, maybe even Kurt Russel" Hollywood wanted obe of the bigger stars and reached out to them, but they all turned it down so average Joe became their Vacationing NYPD hero, so they stuck with the man known as Bruce Willis!
Whilst Visiting his estranged wife at the (fictional) Nakatomi plaza (Fox plaza) the building and it's workforce are quickly taken hostage.
Enter John McClain (willis) a rough looking, smooth talking (the guy literally has a smooth/relaxed voice) witty, sarcastic NYPD cop who just can't seem to catch a break.
Armed with everything I wrote above, aswell as bare feet, air-vents, and a fire hose, McClain pursues the terrorists in an action packed attempt at proving his wife wrong and maybe saving a few people in the process.
Die Hard is a classic 80's action epic that spawned many terrible sequels (excluding 'with a vengeance') that we still paid to watch aswell as countless knockoffs.
Did you know?
. The team behind die hard was laughed at because of their lead choice (you should do I just told you)
. The movie was almost shut down because they used a real life helicopter around the building whilst local residents tried to sleep causing an outrage and filed complaints.
. miniature explosions were set of atop the building for affect.
. Alan Rickman was lied to about when he'd be dropped from the "building" the capture a natural look of fear (about a 30ft drop).
. It was Alan Rickmans first movie ( what a way to hit the ground and keep running)
. A replica model of the building was built to film the remaining explosions on the building.
. The original Vest (tank top) is on display in the Smithsonian.
.the movie was filmed during official construction of the fox plaza aka nakatomi plaza.

Alan Tudyk recommended Grown Man by Loudon Wainwright, III in Music (curated)

Henry Rollins recommended All the President's Men (1976) in Movies (curated)

Sarah (7799 KP) rated Snatch (2001) in Movies
Dec 20, 2020
Hilarious
Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Snatch
Snatch (2000) is Guy Ritchie’s second film following on from his hugely successful debut, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). Critically Snatch wasn’t quite as well received as it’s predecessor but the general movie going public found it a lot more enjoyable, and personally I agree with the public. I’ve always loved Snatch and prefer it over Lock, Stock.
Snatch tells a rather convoluted and twisting tale about gangsters, diamonds and unlicensed boxing. In a number of intersecting storylines, we see unlicensed boxing promoters Turkish (Jason Statham) and Tommy (Stephen Graham) get pulled into the world of match fixing with violent bookmaker Brick Top (Alan Ford), recruiting Brad Pitt’s gypsy Mickey along the way. And then you have inept criminals Sol (Lennie James), Vinny (Robbie Gee) and Tyrone (Ade) as they attempt to steal a valuable diamond from Franky Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro) on behalf of Russian Boris the Blade (Rade Serbedzija), also involving Vinnie Jones’s Bullet-Tooth Tony, Mike Reid’s Doug the Head and Dennis Farina’s Cousin Avi along the way. As you can see, the plot isn’t exactly straight forward but despite it’s complexity, it’s a fun and entertaining watch to see all of these separate storylines come together.
What makes this complex and quite frankly bonkers story so good to watch is the script and absolutely superb dialogue. Considering this isn’t what you’d class as a typical comedy fun, it is downright hilarious. No matter how many times I’ve seen this film, it still makes me laugh every time with it’s smart, witty and funny dialogue. From Turkish’s narration to Cousin Avi’s scathing remarks about London and pretty much every interaction between Sol, Vinny and Tyrone, Snatch is extremely amusing. Admittedly there are some lines and exchanges that feel a little too forced and staged, and I think this may be due to some questionable acting and the sometimes unnatural sounding London accents.
Guy Ritchie has undoubtedly put together a stylish and slick film, and Snatch definitely encompasses the dark and gritty feel of London. Maybe a little too much as it can feel a bit gloomy at times. It has a great soundtrack and this really works with Ritchie’s directing style for the most part. There are some questionable camera angles and not all of these work – the most grating for me was in the opening scenes with Franky Four Finger’s heist where the camera jumped around far too much.
Despite this, his style works well in general and is aided by the fantastic cast that has been assembled. I’ve never been a fan of Jason Statham, but this is by far his best work, although the star of Snatch is certainly Brad Pitt, who is virtually unrecognisable as gypsy Mickey, both in looks and with his purposely indecipherable Irish accent. Snatch came out the year after Fight Club at a time that would likely be classed as the peak of Pitt’s career, so to see him play a character like Mickey was surprising to say the least. But the entire cast shine with the material they’ve got to work with.
Snatch isn’t a film for everyone and definitely not for the easily offended. For me, I could watch this repeatedly and still laugh every time, and it’s absolutely deserving of a place on this list.
Snatch (2000) is Guy Ritchie’s second film following on from his hugely successful debut, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). Critically Snatch wasn’t quite as well received as it’s predecessor but the general movie going public found it a lot more enjoyable, and personally I agree with the public. I’ve always loved Snatch and prefer it over Lock, Stock.
Snatch tells a rather convoluted and twisting tale about gangsters, diamonds and unlicensed boxing. In a number of intersecting storylines, we see unlicensed boxing promoters Turkish (Jason Statham) and Tommy (Stephen Graham) get pulled into the world of match fixing with violent bookmaker Brick Top (Alan Ford), recruiting Brad Pitt’s gypsy Mickey along the way. And then you have inept criminals Sol (Lennie James), Vinny (Robbie Gee) and Tyrone (Ade) as they attempt to steal a valuable diamond from Franky Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro) on behalf of Russian Boris the Blade (Rade Serbedzija), also involving Vinnie Jones’s Bullet-Tooth Tony, Mike Reid’s Doug the Head and Dennis Farina’s Cousin Avi along the way. As you can see, the plot isn’t exactly straight forward but despite it’s complexity, it’s a fun and entertaining watch to see all of these separate storylines come together.
What makes this complex and quite frankly bonkers story so good to watch is the script and absolutely superb dialogue. Considering this isn’t what you’d class as a typical comedy fun, it is downright hilarious. No matter how many times I’ve seen this film, it still makes me laugh every time with it’s smart, witty and funny dialogue. From Turkish’s narration to Cousin Avi’s scathing remarks about London and pretty much every interaction between Sol, Vinny and Tyrone, Snatch is extremely amusing. Admittedly there are some lines and exchanges that feel a little too forced and staged, and I think this may be due to some questionable acting and the sometimes unnatural sounding London accents.
Guy Ritchie has undoubtedly put together a stylish and slick film, and Snatch definitely encompasses the dark and gritty feel of London. Maybe a little too much as it can feel a bit gloomy at times. It has a great soundtrack and this really works with Ritchie’s directing style for the most part. There are some questionable camera angles and not all of these work – the most grating for me was in the opening scenes with Franky Four Finger’s heist where the camera jumped around far too much.
Despite this, his style works well in general and is aided by the fantastic cast that has been assembled. I’ve never been a fan of Jason Statham, but this is by far his best work, although the star of Snatch is certainly Brad Pitt, who is virtually unrecognisable as gypsy Mickey, both in looks and with his purposely indecipherable Irish accent. Snatch came out the year after Fight Club at a time that would likely be classed as the peak of Pitt’s career, so to see him play a character like Mickey was surprising to say the least. But the entire cast shine with the material they’ve got to work with.
Snatch isn’t a film for everyone and definitely not for the easily offended. For me, I could watch this repeatedly and still laugh every time, and it’s absolutely deserving of a place on this list.

RəX Regent (349 KP) rated V for Vendetta (2005) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Missed the point... Ponderously
Contains spoilers, click to show
"BOLLOCKS!" This is the standard British insult which is banded about by the stereotypical characters as perceived by our American cousins. Or is this a succinct review of the film? Alan Moore, more famously known for Watchmen, was the original author of the graphic novel of the same name, which was published between 1982 and '85 and then later reprinted in full by DC comics, had his name removed during production. The Brothers Wachowski, of The Matrix fame, a seminal film, penned the adaptation and did so without truly understanding the source.
We ended up with a dull, overly bombastic and ponderous take on a much more subversive novel, with stereotypical fascist villains, shown to have taken power by releasing a virus upon the country's population, rather than the comic's thesis on the apathetic voters, legitimately electing them.
This is Hollywood does Britain, and as usual, they got it wrong. This is a sci-fi fantasy, where the hero/terrorist dons a Guy Fawkes mask and romantically spreads revolution across the country. But Hugo Weaving's ranting, good though he always is, is just boring and overblown. He is a Nutter and not in the good sense. I don't understand what gives him the right to blow up Parliament for us? I think that he's the other side of the same coin; a dictator in his own right. Is this the point? Maybe, but that point is lost when the film is trying to walk the fine line between epic political film-making with an edge, and a major comic book adaptation by the creators of the revolutionary Matrix. Though, the ill-conceived sequels should have served as a warning to us all as to what to expect from this project.
When I first watched this, I thought it was okay, but on repeat viewings it just continues to fall further and further down in my estimation. Boring, contrived, and misconceived. The Brothers Grimm Wachowski need to rethink their strategy and their role in the business and they are in no way, shape or form serious filmmakers. They have a fantastic and they did have a revolutionary view of cinematography, but as for being deep and meaningful writers... more ponderous and self absorbed than anything else.
We ended up with a dull, overly bombastic and ponderous take on a much more subversive novel, with stereotypical fascist villains, shown to have taken power by releasing a virus upon the country's population, rather than the comic's thesis on the apathetic voters, legitimately electing them.
This is Hollywood does Britain, and as usual, they got it wrong. This is a sci-fi fantasy, where the hero/terrorist dons a Guy Fawkes mask and romantically spreads revolution across the country. But Hugo Weaving's ranting, good though he always is, is just boring and overblown. He is a Nutter and not in the good sense. I don't understand what gives him the right to blow up Parliament for us? I think that he's the other side of the same coin; a dictator in his own right. Is this the point? Maybe, but that point is lost when the film is trying to walk the fine line between epic political film-making with an edge, and a major comic book adaptation by the creators of the revolutionary Matrix. Though, the ill-conceived sequels should have served as a warning to us all as to what to expect from this project.
When I first watched this, I thought it was okay, but on repeat viewings it just continues to fall further and further down in my estimation. Boring, contrived, and misconceived. The Brothers Grimm Wachowski need to rethink their strategy and their role in the business and they are in no way, shape or form serious filmmakers. They have a fantastic and they did have a revolutionary view of cinematography, but as for being deep and meaningful writers... more ponderous and self absorbed than anything else.

Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Her Every Fear in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Read my review here: https://bookbumzuky.wordpress.com/
NOW AVAILABLE!
<b><i>Face it. Accept it. Float with it. Let time pass.</i></b>
Kate, our anxiety riddled main character, has just flat swapped with her American cousin in order to boost her confidence and try to escape her haunted past for a little while, but as soon as she arrives at her cousin's luxurious apartment, things begin to go sour. Her new next door neighbour has been murdered, and her secretive American cousin seems to the main suspect.
<b>This <i>could</i> have been <i>so</i> good.</b> Swansons last hit novel, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1427280826">The Kind Worth Killing</a> (aw look at my baby review) was so goddamn exciting and thrilling but this was completely missing whatever spark the other had. A co-reviewer (Maxi/Slothreads) commented that this book was uninspired and I couldnt have put that any better myself, hence why Im quoting it. This had potential to work and be great but I feel like Swanson was pushed for time by his editors on this and spewed out whatever came to mind first. I know I sound like a total arse for saying that but Im just really disappointed in this novel! <b>Warning: some spoilers ahead.</b>
Lets start off by talking about our uninteresting characters. Kate suffers from anxiety disorder, made a lot worse by a terrifying incident she had with her ex boyfriend, so she decides to travel across the pond and into her cousin's apartment. While anxiety is something Im all too familiar with, I dont actually have any sympathy for Kate, as were supposed to. If she was really as damaged as she is made out to be, I find it very hard to believe she would move to America for 6 months all by herself, make friends and chat with everyone she comes across and sleep with a guy, Alan, whos admitted to be a creepy window watcher after 3 days of knowing him. Next comes ol cousin Corbin whos a cliche jock. Swanson makes him out to be the guilt ridden, caring man but after the revelation of his bad deeds in the past, how are we supposed to like him or feel sorry for him? It makes all the empathetic talk from him seem so creepy. Our only interesting character is, of course, the psycho. A bit of an over-the-top, cliche psycho, but at least worth reading about.
My <b>main</b> issue with this novel is the repetition of scenes. Our narrator chops and changes several times in the novel, so were often presented with a retelling of what weve already been told by another narrator. Id say that at least 25% of this book is a repeat of a part weve already read, so it gets very tedious, very quickly. Another issue with this novel is the lack of plot twist, I mean, there is a plot twist, but its not that exciting and it happens early on in the novel, so the rest of the book plays out exactly how you would expect it to. Can I also quickly just complain about the unnecessary focus on the fact that Alan is Jewish? It made me uncomfortable. And that Swanson should have done some more research into England because we dont have £100 notes.
This novel had great potential, but in the end, it was a let down. The ending was terribly mediocre and then the remaining chapters were a waste of time to read, they really could have been removed.
Thanks to Netgalley and Faber & Faber Ltd for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.
NOW AVAILABLE!
<b><i>Face it. Accept it. Float with it. Let time pass.</i></b>
Kate, our anxiety riddled main character, has just flat swapped with her American cousin in order to boost her confidence and try to escape her haunted past for a little while, but as soon as she arrives at her cousin's luxurious apartment, things begin to go sour. Her new next door neighbour has been murdered, and her secretive American cousin seems to the main suspect.
<b>This <i>could</i> have been <i>so</i> good.</b> Swansons last hit novel, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1427280826">The Kind Worth Killing</a> (aw look at my baby review) was so goddamn exciting and thrilling but this was completely missing whatever spark the other had. A co-reviewer (Maxi/Slothreads) commented that this book was uninspired and I couldnt have put that any better myself, hence why Im quoting it. This had potential to work and be great but I feel like Swanson was pushed for time by his editors on this and spewed out whatever came to mind first. I know I sound like a total arse for saying that but Im just really disappointed in this novel! <b>Warning: some spoilers ahead.</b>
Lets start off by talking about our uninteresting characters. Kate suffers from anxiety disorder, made a lot worse by a terrifying incident she had with her ex boyfriend, so she decides to travel across the pond and into her cousin's apartment. While anxiety is something Im all too familiar with, I dont actually have any sympathy for Kate, as were supposed to. If she was really as damaged as she is made out to be, I find it very hard to believe she would move to America for 6 months all by herself, make friends and chat with everyone she comes across and sleep with a guy, Alan, whos admitted to be a creepy window watcher after 3 days of knowing him. Next comes ol cousin Corbin whos a cliche jock. Swanson makes him out to be the guilt ridden, caring man but after the revelation of his bad deeds in the past, how are we supposed to like him or feel sorry for him? It makes all the empathetic talk from him seem so creepy. Our only interesting character is, of course, the psycho. A bit of an over-the-top, cliche psycho, but at least worth reading about.
My <b>main</b> issue with this novel is the repetition of scenes. Our narrator chops and changes several times in the novel, so were often presented with a retelling of what weve already been told by another narrator. Id say that at least 25% of this book is a repeat of a part weve already read, so it gets very tedious, very quickly. Another issue with this novel is the lack of plot twist, I mean, there is a plot twist, but its not that exciting and it happens early on in the novel, so the rest of the book plays out exactly how you would expect it to. Can I also quickly just complain about the unnecessary focus on the fact that Alan is Jewish? It made me uncomfortable. And that Swanson should have done some more research into England because we dont have £100 notes.
This novel had great potential, but in the end, it was a let down. The ending was terribly mediocre and then the remaining chapters were a waste of time to read, they really could have been removed.
Thanks to Netgalley and Faber & Faber Ltd for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.

Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Guy Ritchie’s live action remake really was a hit for me. Not much of the story has changed which is fine. I went into this film excited but with a few weary doubts. I was for sure that nothing could compare to the 1992 two dimensional Genie I grew to adore. I then however convinced myself to treat the film as its own entity and not as a comparison. I mean come on, nothing can compare to a cartoon version of anything. You can animate just about anything but trying to flip the story to live-action and expecting the same results can be risky. In the remake it worked out well for the most part. Anytime Genie was his big blue self that’s when the CG that was used was extremely noticeable. I just have never been a fan of CG use on actors, it used to freak me out as a kid. I know it sounds strange but I quickly got over it and was able to really enjoy the film.
When the film was being discussed and or planned the stipulation at least for the two leads (Mena Massaud and Naomi Scott) was, they of course had to be of Indian or Middle Eastern descent, they had to be able to sing and dance and they had to be newcomers. I thought they were perfectly cast and had great chemistry. They also were both able to stand their ground and their performances certainly didn’t get lost playing along side Will Smith. Though he is incomparable to Robin Williams he did do an outstanding job at Genie and I think Williams would be proud of his rendition.
One of my favorite things Disney films have always delivered in any of their films has been the atmosphere and sets. The colors of Agraba are vibrant and inviting. You can almost smell the spices and feel the warm breeze flowing through the city. I am also pleased that Alan Mankin has returned to compose the music for the film. All songs have been kept the same with the addition of a few new songs so be sure to at least sing along with them.
In my honest opinion this live-action remake of Disney’s Aladdin has been my favorite of the live-action Disney remade films so far. It is a two hour nostalgic film filled wth laughs, action, lots of parkour and good life lessons. Money or power can’t always buy happiness.
When the film was being discussed and or planned the stipulation at least for the two leads (Mena Massaud and Naomi Scott) was, they of course had to be of Indian or Middle Eastern descent, they had to be able to sing and dance and they had to be newcomers. I thought they were perfectly cast and had great chemistry. They also were both able to stand their ground and their performances certainly didn’t get lost playing along side Will Smith. Though he is incomparable to Robin Williams he did do an outstanding job at Genie and I think Williams would be proud of his rendition.
One of my favorite things Disney films have always delivered in any of their films has been the atmosphere and sets. The colors of Agraba are vibrant and inviting. You can almost smell the spices and feel the warm breeze flowing through the city. I am also pleased that Alan Mankin has returned to compose the music for the film. All songs have been kept the same with the addition of a few new songs so be sure to at least sing along with them.
In my honest opinion this live-action remake of Disney’s Aladdin has been my favorite of the live-action Disney remade films so far. It is a two hour nostalgic film filled wth laughs, action, lots of parkour and good life lessons. Money or power can’t always buy happiness.