Search
Search results
IT… didn’t really float my boat.
IT is based on the Stephen King novel, and tells the disturbing recurring events that happen within the town of Derry in Maine. Kids keep disappearing and sightings of a spooky clown, other visitations and red balloons occur. A group of bullied high school kids – one directly impacted by the disappearances – work to get to the bottom of the supernatural goings on. (Fortunately they don’t have a dog called Scooby).
I had in mind that with the disturbing and dangerous “clowning around” that happened in the summer of 2016 that this film had been shot a while ago and the release delayed until now for fear of adding ‘clown-flavoured fuel’ to the fire. But it appears that filming only completed in September of last year, so that appears not to be the case.
The film starts memorably and brutally with the “drain scene” from the trailer. And very effective it is too. “Great!” you think… this is a spookfest that has legs! Unfortunately, for me at least, it all went downhill from there. The film really doesn’t seem to know WHAT it’s trying to be. There are elements of “Stand By Me”; elements of “Alien”; elements of “The Conjuring”, all thrown into a cinematic blender and pulsed well.
The most endearing aspects of the movie are the interactions of the small-town kids, with this aspect of the film bearing the closest comparison with J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. This is carried by the great performances of the young actors involved, with Jaeden Lieberher (so memorable in “Midnight Special”) as Bill; Jeremy Ray Taylor (“Ant Man”) as Ben (‘the chubby one’); and Finn Wolfhard, in his big-screen premiere and sporting an absurd set of glasses, as the wise-cracking Ritchie.
Standout for my though was the then 14-year old Sophia Lillis as Beverly (the nearest equivalent to the Elle Fanning role in “Super 8”). This young lady has SUCH screen presence, reminiscent of Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films. I think she is a name to watch!
While commenting on the acting I do need to acknowledge Bill Skarsgård (“Atomic Blonde” and son of Stellan Skarsgård) who is creepily effective as Pennywise the clown.
Having a film that just centred on the pubescent interplay between the youngsters and their battles against the near-psychopathic school bully Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton, “Captain Fantastic”) would have kept me well-entertained for two hours. However, in the same way that the hugely over-inflated Sci-Fi ending of “Super 8” rather detracted from that film, so the clown-related story popping up all the time just irritated me to distraction. (“WILL YOU JUST FECK OFF AND LEAVE US TO FIND OUT WHO BEVERLY GETS OFF WITH???!!”)
While the film has a number of good jump-scares, a lot of them – especially those with excessive use of CGI – just don’t really work. There are normally no “outcomes” from the scares. It’s all a bit like a ghost train where the carriage rounds a corner, something jumps out, and then the carriage moves on round the corner again! What makes a great horror film is where the “science” of the horror is well thought through. “Alien” was an exceptional example of that, where the science wasn’t just “physics” but also “biology”. Here (and I’m not sure whether this is true to the book… this is one of Stephen King’s I haven’t read) there seems to be no rules involved at all. Things happen fairly randomly: shape-shifting and effects on physical objects happen with no rational explanation; the kids can see things adults can’t see. (Why?). In fact the “adults” – the usual mix of Stephen King dysfunctional small-town crazies – seem to have no significant part in the story at all. It’s all like some lame teenage fantasy where actions (a number of individuals in the story meet their demise) seem to carry no legal consequences whatsoever. I half expected Bill to wake up – Dallas style – at the end and realise it had all been an “awful dream”!
In particular, the denouement is highly dissatisfying. An opportunity for a (very black) twist in the plot is discarded. Pennywise the clown’s departure is both lame and unconvincing. And there are numerous loose ends that are never properly tied down (what was that “floaters descending” dialogue about?…. it was just never followed through!).
It’s not all bad though. The location shoots in Bangor, Maine and the Ontario countryside are all beautifully rendered by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung (“Stoker”) and where the film clicks with the young cast it clicks well and enjoyably. I just wish that the overall film wasn’t just such a jumbled-up mess. Blame for that must lie with the screenwriting team and director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”). I’m going to give it a kicking in my rating, since with all the marketing build-up it was certainly a disappointment. I see though that at the time of writing that this film sports an unfathomably high imdb rating of 8.0/10 so I’ll acknowledge that somebody must have seen something more in this than I did!!
I had in mind that with the disturbing and dangerous “clowning around” that happened in the summer of 2016 that this film had been shot a while ago and the release delayed until now for fear of adding ‘clown-flavoured fuel’ to the fire. But it appears that filming only completed in September of last year, so that appears not to be the case.
The film starts memorably and brutally with the “drain scene” from the trailer. And very effective it is too. “Great!” you think… this is a spookfest that has legs! Unfortunately, for me at least, it all went downhill from there. The film really doesn’t seem to know WHAT it’s trying to be. There are elements of “Stand By Me”; elements of “Alien”; elements of “The Conjuring”, all thrown into a cinematic blender and pulsed well.
The most endearing aspects of the movie are the interactions of the small-town kids, with this aspect of the film bearing the closest comparison with J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. This is carried by the great performances of the young actors involved, with Jaeden Lieberher (so memorable in “Midnight Special”) as Bill; Jeremy Ray Taylor (“Ant Man”) as Ben (‘the chubby one’); and Finn Wolfhard, in his big-screen premiere and sporting an absurd set of glasses, as the wise-cracking Ritchie.
Standout for my though was the then 14-year old Sophia Lillis as Beverly (the nearest equivalent to the Elle Fanning role in “Super 8”). This young lady has SUCH screen presence, reminiscent of Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films. I think she is a name to watch!
While commenting on the acting I do need to acknowledge Bill Skarsgård (“Atomic Blonde” and son of Stellan Skarsgård) who is creepily effective as Pennywise the clown.
Having a film that just centred on the pubescent interplay between the youngsters and their battles against the near-psychopathic school bully Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton, “Captain Fantastic”) would have kept me well-entertained for two hours. However, in the same way that the hugely over-inflated Sci-Fi ending of “Super 8” rather detracted from that film, so the clown-related story popping up all the time just irritated me to distraction. (“WILL YOU JUST FECK OFF AND LEAVE US TO FIND OUT WHO BEVERLY GETS OFF WITH???!!”)
While the film has a number of good jump-scares, a lot of them – especially those with excessive use of CGI – just don’t really work. There are normally no “outcomes” from the scares. It’s all a bit like a ghost train where the carriage rounds a corner, something jumps out, and then the carriage moves on round the corner again! What makes a great horror film is where the “science” of the horror is well thought through. “Alien” was an exceptional example of that, where the science wasn’t just “physics” but also “biology”. Here (and I’m not sure whether this is true to the book… this is one of Stephen King’s I haven’t read) there seems to be no rules involved at all. Things happen fairly randomly: shape-shifting and effects on physical objects happen with no rational explanation; the kids can see things adults can’t see. (Why?). In fact the “adults” – the usual mix of Stephen King dysfunctional small-town crazies – seem to have no significant part in the story at all. It’s all like some lame teenage fantasy where actions (a number of individuals in the story meet their demise) seem to carry no legal consequences whatsoever. I half expected Bill to wake up – Dallas style – at the end and realise it had all been an “awful dream”!
In particular, the denouement is highly dissatisfying. An opportunity for a (very black) twist in the plot is discarded. Pennywise the clown’s departure is both lame and unconvincing. And there are numerous loose ends that are never properly tied down (what was that “floaters descending” dialogue about?…. it was just never followed through!).
It’s not all bad though. The location shoots in Bangor, Maine and the Ontario countryside are all beautifully rendered by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung (“Stoker”) and where the film clicks with the young cast it clicks well and enjoyably. I just wish that the overall film wasn’t just such a jumbled-up mess. Blame for that must lie with the screenwriting team and director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”). I’m going to give it a kicking in my rating, since with all the marketing build-up it was certainly a disappointment. I see though that at the time of writing that this film sports an unfathomably high imdb rating of 8.0/10 so I’ll acknowledge that somebody must have seen something more in this than I did!!
Beckie Shelton (40 KP) rated The Shimmering in Books
May 28, 2017
Sci-Fi Romance
The shimmering By Susan Kearney was a sci-fi romance that was very reminiscent of the stories I have read in my younger days and I was such a sucker for these, So this book had me feeling rather nostalgic, wanting to experience this all over again.
This was my main reason for wanting to read this novel and I have to admit I was also looking for something light, fluffy and just easy to read, a bit of romantic instalove to warm the old heart, sigh.
And The Shimmering does all that, you get exactly what it says on the tin.
This was an ok read, not amazing, but it passed a few hours and was enjoyable in an easy non-brain taxing way.
Basically, you have our intrepid heroine journalist Sandra Lowell testing out an astral projecting machine for a story.
This device manages to, with a little help from an ancient Totem the Zorash, to send Sandra across the universe and into the body of a woman about to be married to Daveck. Daveck is intent on marrying his enemies daughter to force her to reveal the location of the same object that has helped propel Sandra here to his planet from across the stars.
So what worked for me and what didn't.
well, I felt that the storyline here is so imaginative that much more could have been done to expand on this, I would have liked to see this more of this new world, to explore and meet its alien people properly.
Sandra also seemed a lot more fleshed out than Daveck, who I really struggled to get a fully dimensional picture of and to connect with, also I'm all for instalove but I felt that Sandra after lamenting all through earlier chapters why she didn't have a man and how important her career was gave up that job unbelievably fast.
Now that is out of the way, why should you read The Shimmering?
Well, This is a charming uncomplicated tale of instalove across the stars, it's very imaginative and though it's a simple angst-free story it does kind of give you a warm nostalgic glow, This wasn't quite a three for me but a two seemed too low so I've rated this 2 1/2 on the Goodreads rating I would have rated it slightly higher if I was able to connect more with the book's characters, for me this was an ok read that pleasantly passed the time.
Thank you to the publisher and NetGalley for providing me with a free readers copy of the Shimmering. This is my own unbiased opinion.
Arc Reviewed By BeckieBookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
This was my main reason for wanting to read this novel and I have to admit I was also looking for something light, fluffy and just easy to read, a bit of romantic instalove to warm the old heart, sigh.
And The Shimmering does all that, you get exactly what it says on the tin.
This was an ok read, not amazing, but it passed a few hours and was enjoyable in an easy non-brain taxing way.
Basically, you have our intrepid heroine journalist Sandra Lowell testing out an astral projecting machine for a story.
This device manages to, with a little help from an ancient Totem the Zorash, to send Sandra across the universe and into the body of a woman about to be married to Daveck. Daveck is intent on marrying his enemies daughter to force her to reveal the location of the same object that has helped propel Sandra here to his planet from across the stars.
So what worked for me and what didn't.
well, I felt that the storyline here is so imaginative that much more could have been done to expand on this, I would have liked to see this more of this new world, to explore and meet its alien people properly.
Sandra also seemed a lot more fleshed out than Daveck, who I really struggled to get a fully dimensional picture of and to connect with, also I'm all for instalove but I felt that Sandra after lamenting all through earlier chapters why she didn't have a man and how important her career was gave up that job unbelievably fast.
Now that is out of the way, why should you read The Shimmering?
Well, This is a charming uncomplicated tale of instalove across the stars, it's very imaginative and though it's a simple angst-free story it does kind of give you a warm nostalgic glow, This wasn't quite a three for me but a two seemed too low so I've rated this 2 1/2 on the Goodreads rating I would have rated it slightly higher if I was able to connect more with the book's characters, for me this was an ok read that pleasantly passed the time.
Thank you to the publisher and NetGalley for providing me with a free readers copy of the Shimmering. This is my own unbiased opinion.
Arc Reviewed By BeckieBookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Unlocked (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
London Has Fallen, but good
Every year it happens, a big blockbuster comes along and absolutely obliterates the competition at the box office. This year, that award has gone to the much-hyped and slightly disappointing Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2.
Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?
After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.
At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.
Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.
The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.
The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.
Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.
Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?
After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.
At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.
Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.
The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.
The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.
Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.
Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Thrilling from start to finish
Sci-fi seems to be having somewhat of a renaissance recently, that is, if you don’t count Independence Day: Resurgence which could’ve easily derailed the whole genre, never mind just the franchise.
What with last year’s The Martian, the rebirth of Star Wars and the upcoming Passengers, sci-fi is really getting its mojo back. The subject of this review, Arrival, has been hailed as a masterpiece across the Atlantic. But is it worthy of such a strong adjective?
From the director of Prisoners and Sicario; Arrival is not only one of the best sci-fi films of the last year, it’s up there with the genre’s greatest assets. We’re talking a Close Encounters level of good.
Linguistics professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) leads an elite team of investigators when humongous spaceships touch down in 12 locations around the world. As nations teeter on the verge of global war, Banks and her crew must race against time to find a way to communicate with the extra-terrestrial visitors. Hoping to unravel the mystery, she takes a chance that could threaten her life and quite possibly all of mankind.
Amy Adams leads a pleasing cast that includes commanding turns from Forest Whitaker and Jeremy Renner but it is in our female protagonist that we find the most joy. Adams is fast becoming one of Hollywood’s best actresses and her complex character is superbly written and incredibly well acted.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is truly exceptional with the alien craft taking a backseat to sweeping landscapes from across the world. The focal point of the film, a lush and open Montana valley is filmed to a breath-taking standard especially during Arrival’s opening sequences.
When it comes to special effects, director Denis Villeneuve doesn’t bombard the audience with constant CGI, instead opting for a laidback approach. Even the aliens themselves are understated in their appearance. It’s also fair to say that the film is a slow-burner with very little in the way of action – though it manages to stay well-clear of becoming tedious.
In spite of all this though, Arrival’s greatest strength is its story. This is thinking person’s sci-fi that somehow manages to cement its themes with an emotional heft of gravitational proportions. Throughout the 114 minute running time, we’re constantly reminded of our characters and where it is they come from, something missing from the majority of mass-market blockbusters these days.
Overall, Arrival is more than worthy of an adjective like masterpiece. From it’s incredible story and beautiful cinematography to what is Amy Adams’ best performance to date, it’s a new classic for the sci-fi genre and well worth a watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/11/thrilling-from-start-to-finish-arrival-review/
What with last year’s The Martian, the rebirth of Star Wars and the upcoming Passengers, sci-fi is really getting its mojo back. The subject of this review, Arrival, has been hailed as a masterpiece across the Atlantic. But is it worthy of such a strong adjective?
From the director of Prisoners and Sicario; Arrival is not only one of the best sci-fi films of the last year, it’s up there with the genre’s greatest assets. We’re talking a Close Encounters level of good.
Linguistics professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) leads an elite team of investigators when humongous spaceships touch down in 12 locations around the world. As nations teeter on the verge of global war, Banks and her crew must race against time to find a way to communicate with the extra-terrestrial visitors. Hoping to unravel the mystery, she takes a chance that could threaten her life and quite possibly all of mankind.
Amy Adams leads a pleasing cast that includes commanding turns from Forest Whitaker and Jeremy Renner but it is in our female protagonist that we find the most joy. Adams is fast becoming one of Hollywood’s best actresses and her complex character is superbly written and incredibly well acted.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is truly exceptional with the alien craft taking a backseat to sweeping landscapes from across the world. The focal point of the film, a lush and open Montana valley is filmed to a breath-taking standard especially during Arrival’s opening sequences.
When it comes to special effects, director Denis Villeneuve doesn’t bombard the audience with constant CGI, instead opting for a laidback approach. Even the aliens themselves are understated in their appearance. It’s also fair to say that the film is a slow-burner with very little in the way of action – though it manages to stay well-clear of becoming tedious.
In spite of all this though, Arrival’s greatest strength is its story. This is thinking person’s sci-fi that somehow manages to cement its themes with an emotional heft of gravitational proportions. Throughout the 114 minute running time, we’re constantly reminded of our characters and where it is they come from, something missing from the majority of mass-market blockbusters these days.
Overall, Arrival is more than worthy of an adjective like masterpiece. From it’s incredible story and beautiful cinematography to what is Amy Adams’ best performance to date, it’s a new classic for the sci-fi genre and well worth a watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/11/thrilling-from-start-to-finish-arrival-review/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Murder of Adam and Eve in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
The Murder of Adam and Eve</i> by William Dietrich is a young adult, science fiction thriller combining aliens and time travel. What started out as sixteen year old Nick Brynner researching for his History Day project on an out of bounds island, leads to him falling through a wormhole, meeting an alien – a Xu, and eventually finding himself in prehistoric Africa.
Before finding himself in a completely different era, Nick meets a biology-loving teenager, Eleanor Terrell, who tells him she had been abducted by aliens. Initially thinking she is crazy, Nick believes her once one of the said aliens appears to them and claims they have been chosen to try and save mankind. The Xu intend to wipe out humanity by travelling back in time and killing the two people from whom the human race descend from – the people named Adam and Eve in the bible. However they are giving Nick and Ellie a final chance to prevent this from happening.
Once transported to ancient Africa, Nick and Ellie start a desperate search for Adam and Eve in order to protect them from the Xu. But in order to do this they need to be able to take care of themselves in a place where water, food and shelter are not easily come by. Once locating the people they seek for they begin to realize the enormity of the task they have been given; whatever they do will have a massive impact on the future of the world.
<i>The Murder of Adam and Eve</i> is an interesting concept that really gets you thinking about the way in which the world has developed. Despite the usage of the biblical names Adam and Eve this book is not based on religious theory at all. It is a science-based idea maintaining that the human race can eventually be traced back to two people.
Many readers may be able to relate to both Nick and Ellie’s personalities. Nick in particular is a quiet, unnoticeable boy without any great talent, however during the book he grows into a more confident person and becomes the leader needed in order to save mankind.
Overall this fast paced book is fun to read. Although a little too far-fetched to take seriously, it makes the reader think more about the ways humans have behaved over the years but also highlights the positives and our ability to make things and learn. The clash of the two different time periods makes it a thought-provoking novel that many teenagers will love to read.
The Murder of Adam and Eve</i> by William Dietrich is a young adult, science fiction thriller combining aliens and time travel. What started out as sixteen year old Nick Brynner researching for his History Day project on an out of bounds island, leads to him falling through a wormhole, meeting an alien – a Xu, and eventually finding himself in prehistoric Africa.
Before finding himself in a completely different era, Nick meets a biology-loving teenager, Eleanor Terrell, who tells him she had been abducted by aliens. Initially thinking she is crazy, Nick believes her once one of the said aliens appears to them and claims they have been chosen to try and save mankind. The Xu intend to wipe out humanity by travelling back in time and killing the two people from whom the human race descend from – the people named Adam and Eve in the bible. However they are giving Nick and Ellie a final chance to prevent this from happening.
Once transported to ancient Africa, Nick and Ellie start a desperate search for Adam and Eve in order to protect them from the Xu. But in order to do this they need to be able to take care of themselves in a place where water, food and shelter are not easily come by. Once locating the people they seek for they begin to realize the enormity of the task they have been given; whatever they do will have a massive impact on the future of the world.
<i>The Murder of Adam and Eve</i> is an interesting concept that really gets you thinking about the way in which the world has developed. Despite the usage of the biblical names Adam and Eve this book is not based on religious theory at all. It is a science-based idea maintaining that the human race can eventually be traced back to two people.
Many readers may be able to relate to both Nick and Ellie’s personalities. Nick in particular is a quiet, unnoticeable boy without any great talent, however during the book he grows into a more confident person and becomes the leader needed in order to save mankind.
Overall this fast paced book is fun to read. Although a little too far-fetched to take seriously, it makes the reader think more about the ways humans have behaved over the years but also highlights the positives and our ability to make things and learn. The clash of the two different time periods makes it a thought-provoking novel that many teenagers will love to read.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
Jan 9, 2020
Epic Indeed
In Guardians of the Galaxy, a group of unlikely heroes for a team to keep a powerful weapon out of the hands of a madman.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
The team is perfect and there’s no disputing it. They’re led by Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) who goes by the name of Starlord. He’s a self-loving womanizer who’s got comebacks for days. He falls in love with Gamora (Zoe Saldana), a green alien badass who is the daughter of a tyrant. Out of the five of them, my personal favorite is Groot (Vin Diesel), a tree being who only says, “I am Groot” yet his good friend Rocket Raccoon (weapons expert and maniac) seems to be the only one that understands the true context of his words. And I could do two more paragraphs on Drax (Dave Bautista) alone. You can’t help but love this team.
Beyond these characters, the movie really excels by bringing in a number of memorable characters that have smaller roles. Ronin (Lee Pace) the villain is a fun bad guy you definitely respect. Meanwhile, the mohawked Yondu is on the hunt for Starlord. Yondu (Michael Rooker) carries around a cool weapon that responds to his whistling. These characters are not only endearing, but experience growth throughout the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
The first ten minutes takes you on sheer adventure and it never lets up from there. The stakes are high (they’re guarding the galaxy for God’s sake!) and the villain is a legit threat. There are space chases, prison breakouts, and more that will keep you entertained for the duration of the movie.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
It’s rare that I clap, laugh, and tear up all in the same movie. I lost count of the number of scenes that could be considered all-time greats in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I love that the movie dives into finding family int the most unlikely of places.
Pace: 10
Hard to believe the movie was over two hours when I checked the run time. It runs so smoothly and quickly. When it’s over, you feel like you’ve been on a massive adventure in a short amount of time.
Plot: 10
There were a number of places throughout the movie where an average story could have lost its way. Guardians of the Galaxy never misses a beat. It connects all of its dots while reaching out to the extended universe at the same time.
Resolution: 10
Groot…I love you. That’s all I will say.
Overall: 100
Endless adventure. Funny for days. Touching moments. A budding romance. Guardians of the Galaxy is why I love movies.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
The team is perfect and there’s no disputing it. They’re led by Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) who goes by the name of Starlord. He’s a self-loving womanizer who’s got comebacks for days. He falls in love with Gamora (Zoe Saldana), a green alien badass who is the daughter of a tyrant. Out of the five of them, my personal favorite is Groot (Vin Diesel), a tree being who only says, “I am Groot” yet his good friend Rocket Raccoon (weapons expert and maniac) seems to be the only one that understands the true context of his words. And I could do two more paragraphs on Drax (Dave Bautista) alone. You can’t help but love this team.
Beyond these characters, the movie really excels by bringing in a number of memorable characters that have smaller roles. Ronin (Lee Pace) the villain is a fun bad guy you definitely respect. Meanwhile, the mohawked Yondu is on the hunt for Starlord. Yondu (Michael Rooker) carries around a cool weapon that responds to his whistling. These characters are not only endearing, but experience growth throughout the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
The first ten minutes takes you on sheer adventure and it never lets up from there. The stakes are high (they’re guarding the galaxy for God’s sake!) and the villain is a legit threat. There are space chases, prison breakouts, and more that will keep you entertained for the duration of the movie.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
It’s rare that I clap, laugh, and tear up all in the same movie. I lost count of the number of scenes that could be considered all-time greats in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I love that the movie dives into finding family int the most unlikely of places.
Pace: 10
Hard to believe the movie was over two hours when I checked the run time. It runs so smoothly and quickly. When it’s over, you feel like you’ve been on a massive adventure in a short amount of time.
Plot: 10
There were a number of places throughout the movie where an average story could have lost its way. Guardians of the Galaxy never misses a beat. It connects all of its dots while reaching out to the extended universe at the same time.
Resolution: 10
Groot…I love you. That’s all I will say.
Overall: 100
Endless adventure. Funny for days. Touching moments. A budding romance. Guardians of the Galaxy is why I love movies.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Color Out of Space (2019) in Movies
Feb 8, 2020
You had me at Nicolas Cage.
The Gardners are settling into the secluded family home nicely, no city hustle and bustle to bother them. That peaceful life is shattered when a curious meteorite crashes into their garden. Far from a normal bit of space debris, the rock seems to be changing everything around it. It's taking over, the plants, pace and time, even the family themselves.
Briefly hearing Richard Stanley before this screening made me feel this adaptation of Lovecraft's work of the same name was in good hands, he clearly has an appreciation for what he's was working on and the imagery he creates makes for incredible viewing.
So, straight to Nic Cage... he doesn't quite go full Cage, but he's pretty close. It's the usual insanity we've all come to love.
This film is a little crazy on many levels, the family as a whole are very off before we even get to the magical meteorite. Each member seemingly has their own little corner of crazy town mapped out, and yet when you look at them as a whole you'd wouldn't put them in the same family.
As the film progresses and things get even more bizarre the family feel even less connected than at the beginning. The alien influence is pushing them further apart, but on top of that the script falls away in the middle and chaotic devolving of sanity replaces it. Each member of the family has their own experience with the meteorite, apart from chaos and the underlying cause none of it feels connected.
To say it plainly, there's some really messed up stuff. I would love to see how some of it was achieved because if Richardson is doing half the things it appears she is then she deserves some kind of award. I've got the short story to read so I can compare the two because honestly I can't visualise the written version of this story.
The creatures that evolve are made to be terrifying, and they do scare, but the comedy moments that come through from the performances (mostly unintentionally I guess) detract from it being all that shocking.
Our meteorite has a great influence over the sets for most of the movie, the colours and the growth are used to good effect. The progression is clear and well balanced, it might not always look realistic but the fact that that's the point helps.
When you look at Color Out Of Space as a whole it's all over the place, interesting but ambling, understandable and confusing. Despite that, it's an experience that I enjoyed having.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/color-out-of-space-movie-review.html
The Gardners are settling into the secluded family home nicely, no city hustle and bustle to bother them. That peaceful life is shattered when a curious meteorite crashes into their garden. Far from a normal bit of space debris, the rock seems to be changing everything around it. It's taking over, the plants, pace and time, even the family themselves.
Briefly hearing Richard Stanley before this screening made me feel this adaptation of Lovecraft's work of the same name was in good hands, he clearly has an appreciation for what he's was working on and the imagery he creates makes for incredible viewing.
So, straight to Nic Cage... he doesn't quite go full Cage, but he's pretty close. It's the usual insanity we've all come to love.
This film is a little crazy on many levels, the family as a whole are very off before we even get to the magical meteorite. Each member seemingly has their own little corner of crazy town mapped out, and yet when you look at them as a whole you'd wouldn't put them in the same family.
As the film progresses and things get even more bizarre the family feel even less connected than at the beginning. The alien influence is pushing them further apart, but on top of that the script falls away in the middle and chaotic devolving of sanity replaces it. Each member of the family has their own experience with the meteorite, apart from chaos and the underlying cause none of it feels connected.
To say it plainly, there's some really messed up stuff. I would love to see how some of it was achieved because if Richardson is doing half the things it appears she is then she deserves some kind of award. I've got the short story to read so I can compare the two because honestly I can't visualise the written version of this story.
The creatures that evolve are made to be terrifying, and they do scare, but the comedy moments that come through from the performances (mostly unintentionally I guess) detract from it being all that shocking.
Our meteorite has a great influence over the sets for most of the movie, the colours and the growth are used to good effect. The progression is clear and well balanced, it might not always look realistic but the fact that that's the point helps.
When you look at Color Out Of Space as a whole it's all over the place, interesting but ambling, understandable and confusing. Despite that, it's an experience that I enjoyed having.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/color-out-of-space-movie-review.html
JT (287 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Mar 23, 2020
Does what it says on the tin
Big action blockbusters probably don’t get much bigger than this, certainly, the budgets don’t. Just ask Gareth Edwards, who is making his second feature (again about monsters) brings to life one of the films most iconic.
Edwards as a director landed on peoples radar with his 2010 micro-budgeted Monsters which drew on strong character development and their ongoing relationships in the aftermath of an alien invasion. In this reboot, which if there was ever a need for a remake this might well have been it, Edwards plumps for well crafted central characters while teasing us with glimpses of prehistoric beings saving the money shots for the big action set pieces.
In an opening credits history lesson which gives us a background into the creation of the gargantuan predator, and the reason for all that nuclear testing, we are fast-forwarded to 1999 was the discovery of giant remains sparks fears that something else has been awoken and ready to cause some havoc.
I wasn’t particularly blown away by this one, the first half is exceptional as Cranston’s Joe Brody is encapsulated in a collapsing nuclear power plant disaster and then goes a bit crackpot as he looks to unearth his theory that the government are trying to cover something up.
Once the dust settles on that and the force of nature have revealed themselves in the shape of Godzilla and his foe the M.U.TO.s (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Objects) there is little to do but sit back and watch the carnage unfurl.
With so much going on the character performances are practically dwarfed by the 350 ft beasts going toe to toe, and you really pay little attention to what is going on in the background. Some of the cast add little if anything which is a shame, Ken Watanabe does a lot of starring into space with his jaw-dropping onto the floor. His partner in science Sally Hawkins merely attempts to add snippets of useless information and poor Elizabeth Olsen is reduced to a bit part love interest.
Taylor-Johnson looks suitably beefed up and manages to hold his own, taking centre stage to save the world from possible annihilation, as if that hasn’t already been achieved by the Dawrinesque nuclear creation. There are parts within the film that are ludicrous, and parts that you can stare in amazement at none more so than the final fight which if anything is certainly worth the admission price.
Visually as you would expect it’s a stunning film but is somewhat disjointed throughout. There were enough subtle references to suggest a sequel (which there was) and that Gareth Edwards will in someway get another crack and wreaking havoc somewhere else (which he didn’t).
Edwards as a director landed on peoples radar with his 2010 micro-budgeted Monsters which drew on strong character development and their ongoing relationships in the aftermath of an alien invasion. In this reboot, which if there was ever a need for a remake this might well have been it, Edwards plumps for well crafted central characters while teasing us with glimpses of prehistoric beings saving the money shots for the big action set pieces.
In an opening credits history lesson which gives us a background into the creation of the gargantuan predator, and the reason for all that nuclear testing, we are fast-forwarded to 1999 was the discovery of giant remains sparks fears that something else has been awoken and ready to cause some havoc.
I wasn’t particularly blown away by this one, the first half is exceptional as Cranston’s Joe Brody is encapsulated in a collapsing nuclear power plant disaster and then goes a bit crackpot as he looks to unearth his theory that the government are trying to cover something up.
Once the dust settles on that and the force of nature have revealed themselves in the shape of Godzilla and his foe the M.U.TO.s (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Objects) there is little to do but sit back and watch the carnage unfurl.
With so much going on the character performances are practically dwarfed by the 350 ft beasts going toe to toe, and you really pay little attention to what is going on in the background. Some of the cast add little if anything which is a shame, Ken Watanabe does a lot of starring into space with his jaw-dropping onto the floor. His partner in science Sally Hawkins merely attempts to add snippets of useless information and poor Elizabeth Olsen is reduced to a bit part love interest.
Taylor-Johnson looks suitably beefed up and manages to hold his own, taking centre stage to save the world from possible annihilation, as if that hasn’t already been achieved by the Dawrinesque nuclear creation. There are parts within the film that are ludicrous, and parts that you can stare in amazement at none more so than the final fight which if anything is certainly worth the admission price.
Visually as you would expect it’s a stunning film but is somewhat disjointed throughout. There were enough subtle references to suggest a sequel (which there was) and that Gareth Edwards will in someway get another crack and wreaking havoc somewhere else (which he didn’t).
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Captive State (2019) in Movies
Jul 6, 2020
Not Captivating Enough - 6/10
Captive State is a 2019 sci-fi/thriller movie directed by Rupert Wyatt and co-written by Rupert Wyatt and Erica Beeney. It was produced by Amblin Partners and Participant Media with producers Rupert Wyatt and David Crockett. The film stars John Goodman, Ashton Sanders, Jonathan Majors, and Vera Farmiga.
In 2019, Chicago is placed under Martial Law as extraterrestrials invade Earth. Attempting to flee the city, the Drummond family, breaks through a barricade to a tunnel exit. Before they can back up and reverse, the aliens attack, vaporizing both parents, with the children having survived in the backseat. Nine years later, 2028, the world has surrendered to the conquering alien forces, who have now become the governing authority. They are called "The Legislators" because all rules of governance and subsequent laws come from them. Walled off from the rest of the city and deep beneath the ground, they've had conscripted humans build them suitable habitats called "Closed Zones" where only high government officials are granted access. Gabriel Drummond (Ashton Sanders), the younger son of the Drummond family is confronted by Chicago Police Commander William Mulligan (John Goodman) who believes he is a part of the resistance. Gabriel's brother Rafe Drummond (Jonathan Majors) was part of the resistance but died on a mission and murals are painted of him in Pilsen, the poor part of town, where Gabriel lives. Mulligan however is not convinced the resistance group, called Phoenix has been neutralized as believed and continues to work towards bringing them down.
This movie was not at all what I expected. I thought it was going to be better than what it was and that's because I didn't even have high expectations going into it. So from the previews/trailers it looked like it was going to be a bigger scale resistance. When I hear resistance fighting, I guess I picture more like fighting like Fallen Skies or like the resistance fighters in Star Wars. This was more of a political/spy thriller going back and forth between the point of view from members of the resistance and those tasked with bringing them down. It had sprinkling of sci-fi and aliens but was too grounded in reality to make it entertaining. It seemed very "done before" and lacked originality. John Goodman did a good job and so did Ashton Sanders but I feel this movie suffered from a bad plot to begin with. Or maybe it sounds good on paper but the delivery failed. Visually it was appealing, the aliens and ships and things looked wonderful but after watching seemed like it wasn't enough to leave the audience satisfied. I give it a 6/10.
In 2019, Chicago is placed under Martial Law as extraterrestrials invade Earth. Attempting to flee the city, the Drummond family, breaks through a barricade to a tunnel exit. Before they can back up and reverse, the aliens attack, vaporizing both parents, with the children having survived in the backseat. Nine years later, 2028, the world has surrendered to the conquering alien forces, who have now become the governing authority. They are called "The Legislators" because all rules of governance and subsequent laws come from them. Walled off from the rest of the city and deep beneath the ground, they've had conscripted humans build them suitable habitats called "Closed Zones" where only high government officials are granted access. Gabriel Drummond (Ashton Sanders), the younger son of the Drummond family is confronted by Chicago Police Commander William Mulligan (John Goodman) who believes he is a part of the resistance. Gabriel's brother Rafe Drummond (Jonathan Majors) was part of the resistance but died on a mission and murals are painted of him in Pilsen, the poor part of town, where Gabriel lives. Mulligan however is not convinced the resistance group, called Phoenix has been neutralized as believed and continues to work towards bringing them down.
This movie was not at all what I expected. I thought it was going to be better than what it was and that's because I didn't even have high expectations going into it. So from the previews/trailers it looked like it was going to be a bigger scale resistance. When I hear resistance fighting, I guess I picture more like fighting like Fallen Skies or like the resistance fighters in Star Wars. This was more of a political/spy thriller going back and forth between the point of view from members of the resistance and those tasked with bringing them down. It had sprinkling of sci-fi and aliens but was too grounded in reality to make it entertaining. It seemed very "done before" and lacked originality. John Goodman did a good job and so did Ashton Sanders but I feel this movie suffered from a bad plot to begin with. Or maybe it sounds good on paper but the delivery failed. Visually it was appealing, the aliens and ships and things looked wonderful but after watching seemed like it wasn't enough to leave the audience satisfied. I give it a 6/10.
BookInspector (124 KP) rated We Were the Salt of the Sea in Books
Sep 24, 2020
Ode to the sea, that would describe this book the best, I think. This novel could make even the coldest heart to fall in love with this powerful God’s creation. 🙂
Catherine was looking for her biological mother, and one day she found her, but she was dead. There were so many unanswered questions left, and Catherine was trying to find out, who her mother really was. The characters chosen for this novel were incredibly complex. Their thoughts and feelings filled this book with different states of mind and different perspectives. All the characters had their own unique personality, and sometimes, they were really mysterious to me. I needed quite a bit of time to analyze them. I didn’t have a particularly favourite character in this book, I think they all had their pros and cons, making them all very believable and realistic.
The narrative of this novel was very smartly written, drop feeding the reader with the investigation’s findings, and opening the characters bit by bit. It was quite a slow burner for me, and I really missed some good twists and turns, but I think this novel concentrates more on the character’s feelings and their search of true selves, rather than trying to solve the crime. I really liked the setting and atmosphere of this novel, and the whole plot was soaked with sea love. The author has a passion for sailing, and you can truly feel her love for the sea when she explains the bond, which sea brings out in sailors. Authors expertise shines not only through the sea love but also through knowledge of boats and fishermen’s routines.
The writing style of this novel was very beautiful and incredibly poetic. The chapters had pretty decent length and didn’t leave me bored. The language of this book has quite a lot of sailing terms and is filled with French charm, so I had to look up some of the terms, which sounded alien to me. 🙂 I did like the ending of this book, I think it rounded the story quite well, however, this book makes your brain work, and even though there is a clue of who Catherine’s father is, I still couldn’t figure it out. (I am too lazy 😀 ) So, if you read this book, please let me know in the comment section down below 😉
So, to conclude, if you like sea, boats and a little bit of crime, filled with charming prose and unique characters, then this book is definitely for you. Summer season is just around the corner, so don’t forget a copy of this book, while enjoying that drink on the beach 😉
Catherine was looking for her biological mother, and one day she found her, but she was dead. There were so many unanswered questions left, and Catherine was trying to find out, who her mother really was. The characters chosen for this novel were incredibly complex. Their thoughts and feelings filled this book with different states of mind and different perspectives. All the characters had their own unique personality, and sometimes, they were really mysterious to me. I needed quite a bit of time to analyze them. I didn’t have a particularly favourite character in this book, I think they all had their pros and cons, making them all very believable and realistic.
The narrative of this novel was very smartly written, drop feeding the reader with the investigation’s findings, and opening the characters bit by bit. It was quite a slow burner for me, and I really missed some good twists and turns, but I think this novel concentrates more on the character’s feelings and their search of true selves, rather than trying to solve the crime. I really liked the setting and atmosphere of this novel, and the whole plot was soaked with sea love. The author has a passion for sailing, and you can truly feel her love for the sea when she explains the bond, which sea brings out in sailors. Authors expertise shines not only through the sea love but also through knowledge of boats and fishermen’s routines.
The writing style of this novel was very beautiful and incredibly poetic. The chapters had pretty decent length and didn’t leave me bored. The language of this book has quite a lot of sailing terms and is filled with French charm, so I had to look up some of the terms, which sounded alien to me. 🙂 I did like the ending of this book, I think it rounded the story quite well, however, this book makes your brain work, and even though there is a clue of who Catherine’s father is, I still couldn’t figure it out. (I am too lazy 😀 ) So, if you read this book, please let me know in the comment section down below 😉
So, to conclude, if you like sea, boats and a little bit of crime, filled with charming prose and unique characters, then this book is definitely for you. Summer season is just around the corner, so don’t forget a copy of this book, while enjoying that drink on the beach 😉