Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
When news first arrived that the crash empire would be releasing a new game. The whole world went nuts. It was a childhood favourite for so many households across the world. It was rolled out onto the PS4 platform on the 30th of June 2017. It smashed pre sale records, with tons of people choosing to put a deposit down in order of not missing the game. It consists of three of the crash games; Crash Bandicoot, Cortex Strikes Back, and Warped. The three most iconic of the crash series. All three had a major face lift, which was going to be obvious due to sheer jump in technology and graphics we’ve had. Yet nothing about the actual game has really changed. The levels, characters, and sounds have all stayed the same. Here’s a review of what the game was like to play.
Game Play
The first thing that a lot of people pointed out is, the game is hard to play. Well, harder than when most of us were kids and attempting it. But this shouldn’t be classed as a negative. It added excitement to the game, and if anything, made game play last longer. The graphics were incredible. Everything was so sharp and defined, it really made the characters and scenery pop to life. It also sort of made the game easier to play. Although the levels were hard, moving through them was easy. There were no annoying glitches, the characters were extra responsive to movements, and it really just had a smoother feeling compared to its very older brother. This game was review on a standard PS4, the graphics would have been 10x better on a custom gaming pc, it would have been interesting to compare the difference.
The attention to detail that Vicarious Visions (the developer) has gone to is outstanding. One huge improvement is the enemies. In the first lot of the three games, the enemies were always so hard to kill. It is very noticeable that in the new series, enemies move more fluidly, and are easier to kill or dodge. There’s no lag what so ever during the game which is perfect. The sounds are also crisper, with additional noises such as feet crunching on the floor, or the wind blowing have been added. It doesn’t affect gameplay, but it’s a nice additional touch. The best of the three games is definitely Cortex Strikes Back, it’s much more fun, crash is able to move around better, and it’s just generally more engaging.
Characters
All of the original characters still appear in the new games. There’s Aku Aku, the mask that appears making the funny noise. Crush, Crunch, Coco, Doctor Neo Cortex to name but a few. As with the scenery of the game, they’ve all had a little face lift too. It’s so much easier to see the features of the character’s. They look so crisp and clear in the HD platform. They all play exactly the same role as they did in the beginning, and seeing them all together in a high definition view really offers something nostalgic. Crash still remains the main character throughout the game.
Price
The price of the game when first released was around $35-$55 depending on which store you got it from. It has now rapidly reduced to around $20-$30. There’s also cool collectable extras to take a look at. You can get model figures of most of the main crash characters from the internet. If you can collect all of them, they might be worth something a little more in the future!
Negatives
There’s only two negatives of this game. One being the fact it is only available on the PS4 platform. Many xbox lovers weren’t too happy about this, but at the same time, crash has always been on playstation. It wouldn’t be right to release it on all platforms. If they had done however, there profit could have been exponential compared to what it was. Although this didn’t have PS4 lover’s complaining. The second issue is just how damn hard the levels were. Yes it’s good to have a little bit of a challenge, but not three whole games worth of rock solid challenges. It did anger a lot of people, especially parents. The game was simply just too hard to play for some children. I think if they had the chance to do it again, they should have options that let you choose game play difficulty. That way it’ll be suitable for all ages. But even so, the game did need to be toned down a bit.
http://sknr.net/2017/10/11/crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy-review/
Game Play
The first thing that a lot of people pointed out is, the game is hard to play. Well, harder than when most of us were kids and attempting it. But this shouldn’t be classed as a negative. It added excitement to the game, and if anything, made game play last longer. The graphics were incredible. Everything was so sharp and defined, it really made the characters and scenery pop to life. It also sort of made the game easier to play. Although the levels were hard, moving through them was easy. There were no annoying glitches, the characters were extra responsive to movements, and it really just had a smoother feeling compared to its very older brother. This game was review on a standard PS4, the graphics would have been 10x better on a custom gaming pc, it would have been interesting to compare the difference.
The attention to detail that Vicarious Visions (the developer) has gone to is outstanding. One huge improvement is the enemies. In the first lot of the three games, the enemies were always so hard to kill. It is very noticeable that in the new series, enemies move more fluidly, and are easier to kill or dodge. There’s no lag what so ever during the game which is perfect. The sounds are also crisper, with additional noises such as feet crunching on the floor, or the wind blowing have been added. It doesn’t affect gameplay, but it’s a nice additional touch. The best of the three games is definitely Cortex Strikes Back, it’s much more fun, crash is able to move around better, and it’s just generally more engaging.
Characters
All of the original characters still appear in the new games. There’s Aku Aku, the mask that appears making the funny noise. Crush, Crunch, Coco, Doctor Neo Cortex to name but a few. As with the scenery of the game, they’ve all had a little face lift too. It’s so much easier to see the features of the character’s. They look so crisp and clear in the HD platform. They all play exactly the same role as they did in the beginning, and seeing them all together in a high definition view really offers something nostalgic. Crash still remains the main character throughout the game.
Price
The price of the game when first released was around $35-$55 depending on which store you got it from. It has now rapidly reduced to around $20-$30. There’s also cool collectable extras to take a look at. You can get model figures of most of the main crash characters from the internet. If you can collect all of them, they might be worth something a little more in the future!
Negatives
There’s only two negatives of this game. One being the fact it is only available on the PS4 platform. Many xbox lovers weren’t too happy about this, but at the same time, crash has always been on playstation. It wouldn’t be right to release it on all platforms. If they had done however, there profit could have been exponential compared to what it was. Although this didn’t have PS4 lover’s complaining. The second issue is just how damn hard the levels were. Yes it’s good to have a little bit of a challenge, but not three whole games worth of rock solid challenges. It did anger a lot of people, especially parents. The game was simply just too hard to play for some children. I think if they had the chance to do it again, they should have options that let you choose game play difficulty. That way it’ll be suitable for all ages. But even so, the game did need to be toned down a bit.
http://sknr.net/2017/10/11/crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Superman Returns (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It has been nearly twenty years since Superman graced the silver screen. This fact is outstanding when you consider that numerous attempts to revive the franchise and two successful television series have occurred in the nearly two decades since 1987’s “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace”.
Amidst much speculation and rumors of a soaring budget that is reported to be over $250 Million, Superman Returns has arrived.
Under the direction of Bryan Singer, who successfully launched the first two films in the “X-Men” series, Brandon Routh dons the tights and capes of the late Christopher Reeve, as the man of steel and his mild mannered alter ego Clark Kent.
As the films opens, it is explained that Superman has been gone five years as he has traveled to what astronomers believe are the remains of his home planet Krypton which was destroyed when he was an infant.
Soon after his return, Clark visits his adopted mother in his hometown of Smallville before returning to Metropolis and his job at the Daily Planet. His happy homecoming is short-lived when Clark realizes that his beloved Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is now a single mom with a fiancée named Richard (James Marsden).
As if this is not enough, Superman is shortly thereafter called into action to save Lois and the passengers of a plane and space shuttle encounter a deadly situation when a press conference goes awry.
In a spectacle of action and visual brilliance Superman not only saves the day, but makes a highly visible and triumphant return that signals to the world that he is back.
As happy as the majority of the world is to have their champion back, Lois is very conflicted about his return. She believes he abandoned humanity and left her without even saying goodbye. Such is the extent of Lois’s anger toward Superman; she has written a story entitled “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman” for which she was awarded a Pulitzer Prize.
As upset as Lois is about the return of Superman, there is one individual who is seething mad over his return and that is Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) who plans to use his recently acquired wealth to hatch his latest plot and end the threat of Superman once and for all.
Lex plans to use the crystals and knowledge he has pilfered from Superman’s arctic Fortress of Solitude to craft a new landmass, where he will rule supreme. The fact that billions of innocents will be killed in the process is of no consequence to the power mad Luthor, setting the stage for several high tech action sequences and daring adventures as Superman sets out to save the day.
Despite numerous concerns I had over the film, I am happy to say that the series is in great hands, and the combination of Spacey, Bosworth, Routh, and Singer have not only produced the best film of Summer 2006, but have paved the way for what looks to be a series of films that, while true to the source materials, is not afraid to push the envelope to modernize Superman.
Routh was solid, not only looked the part perfectly, but handled the dual roles of Clark and Superman with and easygoing charm and manner that is highly effective. His ability to portray Superman as a being with deep emotions as well as power is key to the film as the audience is given a chance to see more than just the man with the muscles. Bosworth is also to be commended for her portrayal of a strong and capable Lois who is anything but the stock damsel in distress. The chemistry between Routh and Bosworth is good which is vital, as this is much more than effects and action.
The humanity and compassion that drives the film is an unexpected bonus. Despite the amazing action sequences, this is a story with deep emotional and psychological themes that are rarely seen in films of this nature.
If I had to find fault in the film, it would be that Spacey was not allowed to really let Lex be truly evil. Sure he talks a good fight, and in a few sequences is not above getting his hands dirty. But, for a film as grand as this, the diabolic plot Luthor is trying to hatch just does not seem diabolic enough.
One could also say that at a running time of nearly two hours and forty minutes that perhaps 20 minutes or so could have been trimmed towards the end to help the pacing of the final segments of the film.
That being said, the impressive mix of action, humor, romance, and cast gives Superman Returns a highly winning formula.
Amidst much speculation and rumors of a soaring budget that is reported to be over $250 Million, Superman Returns has arrived.
Under the direction of Bryan Singer, who successfully launched the first two films in the “X-Men” series, Brandon Routh dons the tights and capes of the late Christopher Reeve, as the man of steel and his mild mannered alter ego Clark Kent.
As the films opens, it is explained that Superman has been gone five years as he has traveled to what astronomers believe are the remains of his home planet Krypton which was destroyed when he was an infant.
Soon after his return, Clark visits his adopted mother in his hometown of Smallville before returning to Metropolis and his job at the Daily Planet. His happy homecoming is short-lived when Clark realizes that his beloved Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is now a single mom with a fiancée named Richard (James Marsden).
As if this is not enough, Superman is shortly thereafter called into action to save Lois and the passengers of a plane and space shuttle encounter a deadly situation when a press conference goes awry.
In a spectacle of action and visual brilliance Superman not only saves the day, but makes a highly visible and triumphant return that signals to the world that he is back.
As happy as the majority of the world is to have their champion back, Lois is very conflicted about his return. She believes he abandoned humanity and left her without even saying goodbye. Such is the extent of Lois’s anger toward Superman; she has written a story entitled “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman” for which she was awarded a Pulitzer Prize.
As upset as Lois is about the return of Superman, there is one individual who is seething mad over his return and that is Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) who plans to use his recently acquired wealth to hatch his latest plot and end the threat of Superman once and for all.
Lex plans to use the crystals and knowledge he has pilfered from Superman’s arctic Fortress of Solitude to craft a new landmass, where he will rule supreme. The fact that billions of innocents will be killed in the process is of no consequence to the power mad Luthor, setting the stage for several high tech action sequences and daring adventures as Superman sets out to save the day.
Despite numerous concerns I had over the film, I am happy to say that the series is in great hands, and the combination of Spacey, Bosworth, Routh, and Singer have not only produced the best film of Summer 2006, but have paved the way for what looks to be a series of films that, while true to the source materials, is not afraid to push the envelope to modernize Superman.
Routh was solid, not only looked the part perfectly, but handled the dual roles of Clark and Superman with and easygoing charm and manner that is highly effective. His ability to portray Superman as a being with deep emotions as well as power is key to the film as the audience is given a chance to see more than just the man with the muscles. Bosworth is also to be commended for her portrayal of a strong and capable Lois who is anything but the stock damsel in distress. The chemistry between Routh and Bosworth is good which is vital, as this is much more than effects and action.
The humanity and compassion that drives the film is an unexpected bonus. Despite the amazing action sequences, this is a story with deep emotional and psychological themes that are rarely seen in films of this nature.
If I had to find fault in the film, it would be that Spacey was not allowed to really let Lex be truly evil. Sure he talks a good fight, and in a few sequences is not above getting his hands dirty. But, for a film as grand as this, the diabolic plot Luthor is trying to hatch just does not seem diabolic enough.
One could also say that at a running time of nearly two hours and forty minutes that perhaps 20 minutes or so could have been trimmed towards the end to help the pacing of the final segments of the film.
That being said, the impressive mix of action, humor, romance, and cast gives Superman Returns a highly winning formula.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Anyone familiar with the comic book or the TV series that starred the late Bill Bixby will be familiar with the setup of “The Incredible Hulk,” the new film version of the classic tale by director Louis Leterrier of “The Transporter” fame.
For those of you unfamiliar with the tale, after Dr. Banner (Edward Norton), is exposed to an accidental overdose of Gamma radiation his body chemistry is altered in such a way that he transforms into a large, green, and destructive creature when he is angered.
Naturally, this puts him at odds with the authorities and the military; thus, Banner is forced to live a vagabond existence while he searches for a way to contain his inner rage.
As the film opens, Banner has already has his accident, and this is shown via a series of clips during the opening credits. Living a simple life in Brazil, Banner works as a laborer in a bottling plant, and attempts to keep as low a profile as he possible can.
Banner communicates in secret via encrypted IM’s with a person he knows as Mr. Blue, and he hopes to extract the creature from his body by means of a plant. Mr. Blue offers Banner some ways to help his problem, but insists that he needs to seek more drastic treatment steps and needs to open up with him and let him try to help.
Since the military was funding his experiments and has huge interest in the creature Banner becomes, he decides the risk is too great and continues to find a cure in secret while he works on methods to control his anger via meditation.
Despite his best efforts, Banner is discovered by General Ross (William Hurt), who is the person in command of the program that Banner used to lead and dispatches a team led by a special operative named Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), attempt to capture Banner. Things do not go as planned, and the attempt only succeeds in angering Banner who transforms into the Hulk with devastating results.
Forced to flee once again, Banner travels back to the United States in an effort to find Mr. Blue in order to rid the menace inside him.
Things become even more complicated for Banner when Blonsky and General Ross decide that Blonsky should seek physical enhancements in an effort to combat the Hulk, and begin a series of treatments that increase Brodsky’s strength and abilities.
Banner finds refuge with an old friend, and soon runs into his old flame Betty (Liv Tyler), whom he has avoided since the accident in an effort to protect her for the potential danger within him.
Fate is soon to step in, and Banner will soon find himself on the run with Betty, but facing the General and his troops as well as a threat even more dangerous than The Hulk.
The new version of the film is light years ahead of the disaster that was the Ang Lee directed film. Norton despite being a soft spoken individual has much more charisma for the part than did Eric Bana as he mixed pathos and humor to make Banner a well- rounded and more believable character. Since Norton co-wrote the script with Zack Penn, he clearly has put a lot of preparation in the characters as despite being comic book characters; they have more depth and humanity than most genre film characters do.
This allows the audience to become better immersed with the characters as his Banner is not some egghead whom the audience cannot connect with, but a real flesh and blood being who is dealing with extra ordinary circumstances.
Roth is solid as the greasy and power mad Blonsky and Hurt and Tyler do well with characters that would normally be stock parts in similar films.
What really impressed me besides the story and FX was the solid acting by Norton as well as the abundant respect for the source material. The film has very clever cameos by Stan Lee, Lou Ferrigno, as well as Bill Bixby which fit and does not come across as cheesy.
Without spoiling the surprise, there is a very nice moment at the end of the film that sets up future adventures as with the recent success of “Iron Man”, I for one and looking forward to more quality films about the Marvel Comics characters in the future, and especially more outings for Big Green.
For those of you unfamiliar with the tale, after Dr. Banner (Edward Norton), is exposed to an accidental overdose of Gamma radiation his body chemistry is altered in such a way that he transforms into a large, green, and destructive creature when he is angered.
Naturally, this puts him at odds with the authorities and the military; thus, Banner is forced to live a vagabond existence while he searches for a way to contain his inner rage.
As the film opens, Banner has already has his accident, and this is shown via a series of clips during the opening credits. Living a simple life in Brazil, Banner works as a laborer in a bottling plant, and attempts to keep as low a profile as he possible can.
Banner communicates in secret via encrypted IM’s with a person he knows as Mr. Blue, and he hopes to extract the creature from his body by means of a plant. Mr. Blue offers Banner some ways to help his problem, but insists that he needs to seek more drastic treatment steps and needs to open up with him and let him try to help.
Since the military was funding his experiments and has huge interest in the creature Banner becomes, he decides the risk is too great and continues to find a cure in secret while he works on methods to control his anger via meditation.
Despite his best efforts, Banner is discovered by General Ross (William Hurt), who is the person in command of the program that Banner used to lead and dispatches a team led by a special operative named Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), attempt to capture Banner. Things do not go as planned, and the attempt only succeeds in angering Banner who transforms into the Hulk with devastating results.
Forced to flee once again, Banner travels back to the United States in an effort to find Mr. Blue in order to rid the menace inside him.
Things become even more complicated for Banner when Blonsky and General Ross decide that Blonsky should seek physical enhancements in an effort to combat the Hulk, and begin a series of treatments that increase Brodsky’s strength and abilities.
Banner finds refuge with an old friend, and soon runs into his old flame Betty (Liv Tyler), whom he has avoided since the accident in an effort to protect her for the potential danger within him.
Fate is soon to step in, and Banner will soon find himself on the run with Betty, but facing the General and his troops as well as a threat even more dangerous than The Hulk.
The new version of the film is light years ahead of the disaster that was the Ang Lee directed film. Norton despite being a soft spoken individual has much more charisma for the part than did Eric Bana as he mixed pathos and humor to make Banner a well- rounded and more believable character. Since Norton co-wrote the script with Zack Penn, he clearly has put a lot of preparation in the characters as despite being comic book characters; they have more depth and humanity than most genre film characters do.
This allows the audience to become better immersed with the characters as his Banner is not some egghead whom the audience cannot connect with, but a real flesh and blood being who is dealing with extra ordinary circumstances.
Roth is solid as the greasy and power mad Blonsky and Hurt and Tyler do well with characters that would normally be stock parts in similar films.
What really impressed me besides the story and FX was the solid acting by Norton as well as the abundant respect for the source material. The film has very clever cameos by Stan Lee, Lou Ferrigno, as well as Bill Bixby which fit and does not come across as cheesy.
Without spoiling the surprise, there is a very nice moment at the end of the film that sets up future adventures as with the recent success of “Iron Man”, I for one and looking forward to more quality films about the Marvel Comics characters in the future, and especially more outings for Big Green.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 6, 2019
Gentle, slow-paced and full of HEART
The new "Mr. Rogers" movie, A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD is gentle, warm, slow, kind and heartfelt - just the type of film that is antithetical to how life is bounding past all of us on a daily basis. It would be well worth your time to slow down, turn off the electronics, and take in this wonderfully loving film.
Tom Hanks, of course, stars as Mr. Rogers - the beloved TV Host of the beloved children's show MR. ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD and he does a remarkable job of bringing this kind gentle soul to life. Hanks embodies all of what is good and right to this character, while still making him a real person. Hanks, no doubt, will be named an Oscar nominee for this performance - but it is in what category that might be a surprise to most.
For, it will be as Supporting (not Lead) Actor for this is NOT a movie ABOUT Mr. Rogers. It is a movie that Mr. Rogers plays a strong Supporting part.
This film is about the real, true-to-life relationship that Fred Rogers forged with troubled writer Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys). Vogel is assigned by his boss at Esquire (Christine Lahti - who it was GREAT to see in a film) to do a quick "puff piece" on Rogers. This hard-boiled reporter is hell-bent on peeling the layers back on this man. The surface of Mr. Rogers is just "too good to be true" to this writer. What happens, of course, is that Fred Rogers peels back the layers on Vogel to help him understand his troubled relationship with his father (Chris Cooper) - and it is this relationship that is at the heart of this movie.
And heart is what is at the center of this film. This film is filled with love, understanding, warmth and HEART in abundance. Fred Rogers helps Lloyd Vogel to slow down and understand - and deal with - his feelings that are impeding his relationship with his father. And it is this heart and warmth that touched me. I was brought to the edge of tears more than once during the course of the 1 hour and 49 minute length of this film (and I am not a cryer) it was that well done - and emotional - without being cloying.
Credit Writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster (both of TV's TRANSPARENT) for adapting Tom Junod's real life Esquire article on Rogers in such a way that it is powerful, thoughtful and effective. They accomplished this by placing the events of this film, loosely, in the format of Rogers' beloved TV show and it worked well.
What also worked well was the Direction of Marielle Heller (CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME) like her previous film (which garnered Melissa McCarthy a well deserved Oscar nomination), Heller keeps her camera relatively still and lets her actors act - relying on tight. lingering close-ups and lingering, quiet pauses for the full effect of the emotions behind the words to land on the audience and resonate.
She would not be able to do this without a strong cast - and a strong cast she has. Besides Hanks, Matthew Rhys (TV's THE AMERICANS) is a steady calm. angry presence that anchors the film in the "no way Mr. Rogers can be that nice" mindset that almost all of us have at the beginning of the film to be slowly peeled away to reveal what is really causing the anger and cynicism emitting from his character. The always reliable Chris Cooper (Oscar winner for ADAPTATION back in 2002) brings pathos and regret as Jerry Vogel, Lloyds father. The relationship between these two is the balancing point of this film and it is balanced well. They are joined by a strong list of Supporting Actors (like Enrico Colantoni, Susan Kelechi Watson and Wendy Makkena) that bring strength and warmth to the proceedings without stealing focus on the main players. They all are SUPPORTING players and they SUPPORT the events of the film wonderfully
I strongly urge you to see this film in a "closed environment" - a movie theater, in a darkened room - without distractions (turn off your phone, close the shades if you are home) and let the warmth, gentleness, humanity and slow-pace wash over you. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A- (Did I mention that this film is paced VERY slowly)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Tom Hanks, of course, stars as Mr. Rogers - the beloved TV Host of the beloved children's show MR. ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD and he does a remarkable job of bringing this kind gentle soul to life. Hanks embodies all of what is good and right to this character, while still making him a real person. Hanks, no doubt, will be named an Oscar nominee for this performance - but it is in what category that might be a surprise to most.
For, it will be as Supporting (not Lead) Actor for this is NOT a movie ABOUT Mr. Rogers. It is a movie that Mr. Rogers plays a strong Supporting part.
This film is about the real, true-to-life relationship that Fred Rogers forged with troubled writer Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys). Vogel is assigned by his boss at Esquire (Christine Lahti - who it was GREAT to see in a film) to do a quick "puff piece" on Rogers. This hard-boiled reporter is hell-bent on peeling the layers back on this man. The surface of Mr. Rogers is just "too good to be true" to this writer. What happens, of course, is that Fred Rogers peels back the layers on Vogel to help him understand his troubled relationship with his father (Chris Cooper) - and it is this relationship that is at the heart of this movie.
And heart is what is at the center of this film. This film is filled with love, understanding, warmth and HEART in abundance. Fred Rogers helps Lloyd Vogel to slow down and understand - and deal with - his feelings that are impeding his relationship with his father. And it is this heart and warmth that touched me. I was brought to the edge of tears more than once during the course of the 1 hour and 49 minute length of this film (and I am not a cryer) it was that well done - and emotional - without being cloying.
Credit Writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster (both of TV's TRANSPARENT) for adapting Tom Junod's real life Esquire article on Rogers in such a way that it is powerful, thoughtful and effective. They accomplished this by placing the events of this film, loosely, in the format of Rogers' beloved TV show and it worked well.
What also worked well was the Direction of Marielle Heller (CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME) like her previous film (which garnered Melissa McCarthy a well deserved Oscar nomination), Heller keeps her camera relatively still and lets her actors act - relying on tight. lingering close-ups and lingering, quiet pauses for the full effect of the emotions behind the words to land on the audience and resonate.
She would not be able to do this without a strong cast - and a strong cast she has. Besides Hanks, Matthew Rhys (TV's THE AMERICANS) is a steady calm. angry presence that anchors the film in the "no way Mr. Rogers can be that nice" mindset that almost all of us have at the beginning of the film to be slowly peeled away to reveal what is really causing the anger and cynicism emitting from his character. The always reliable Chris Cooper (Oscar winner for ADAPTATION back in 2002) brings pathos and regret as Jerry Vogel, Lloyds father. The relationship between these two is the balancing point of this film and it is balanced well. They are joined by a strong list of Supporting Actors (like Enrico Colantoni, Susan Kelechi Watson and Wendy Makkena) that bring strength and warmth to the proceedings without stealing focus on the main players. They all are SUPPORTING players and they SUPPORT the events of the film wonderfully
I strongly urge you to see this film in a "closed environment" - a movie theater, in a darkened room - without distractions (turn off your phone, close the shades if you are home) and let the warmth, gentleness, humanity and slow-pace wash over you. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A- (Did I mention that this film is paced VERY slowly)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
"Anything mentionable is manageable"
Tom Hanks' new movie is a film I personally struggled to fully engage with. But some I suspect will truly LOVE it's gentle and feel-good nature.
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated I Am Not Okay With This in TV
Mar 3, 2020
Proof that Netflix can rule your life, in an OK way, I guess. Every time I have dropped in for the last two weeks, this is the show they went out of their way to push on me. I watched the trailer and thought hmm, I don’t get it… but after relentless publicity I ended up watching the entire first series within 36 hours of its release on February 26th. Which is easy enough to do, as the entire first series only lasts 2 1/2 hours, in 7 x 23 minute easy to swallow episodes. Another nice tactic for the attention deficient generation.
Based on the graphic novels of Charles Forsman, who also gave us The End of the F***ing World – an equally dark edged teen angst story, that has had 2 full seasons of similarly short episodes. It also continues the partnership of that series’ main director, British born Jonathon Entwistle, who seems happily stuck with this genre on his, as yet, limited CV. It stars the quirky charm of Sophia Lillis, best known from the It reboot movies, and Wyatt Oleff, also plucked from that franchise. And, oh yeah, it shares production credits with a small show called Stranger Things; so it has a pop culture pedigree 100% guaranteed to attract a young audience.
In terms of tone and direction, it does wobble at the beginning, but also shows a lot of promise, thanks largely to the watchability of Lillis, who is perfectly cast as a nervy, nerdy teen with a lot of smarts, but not too many friends. The humour is black, the satire subtle, and the delivery is disarmingly adult; on the surface this is a high school comedy, but underneath it is a fucked up, biting exploration of grief, paranoia and anger (mis)management – it pushes boundaries on content, visually and in use of language that only Netflix can endorse and get away with. Which of course is what audiences want!
The premise is that after the suicide of her father, 17 year old Sydney Novak is having some emotional issues beyond the normal teenage stuff of zits on your thighs. As she keeps a secret journal to document her worries and thoughts (heard in voice-over consistently, giving it a definite graphic novel thought bubble vibe) we are in from the start on the possibility she may have a dubious superpower linked to being pissed off.
It takes a while for that aspect to kick in, however, so don’t expect big, showy, superhero set pieces; this is a comedy drama that borrows from every teenage trope available, and is focussed more on the troubles of high school, a single mom and general growing pains. It is funny – I laughed, and found it a charming mix of something really modern feeling, but with retro vibes; it is clearly 2020, but could be 1985, a trick Stranger Things has taught them well.
Really, it is almost all over before it gets started, with these brief episode times – which is smart; no time to waste, so it moves along, and is always endearingly entertaining. In essence, what we have here is a 2 1/2 hour pilot show, chopped into bite sized chunks and released as a tease for the main show, which will be series 2. Think of it as an origin story, if you will. Undoubtedly, that 2nd series is already on the way. Early critical response is solid, and in about another month you will be hearing everyone and their cat talking about it, for sure.
The lack of originality didn’t massively bother me, as you could see what they were trying to do with it, and the large appeal is to recreate a teen world that feels familiar and comfortable, and then play with those preconceptions, choosing the right moments to flip it upside down. Which eventually it does. The final episode of seven is an absolute doozy! Talk about teasing cliff-hangers! They really know how to keep us hooked!
The best thing about it, by a country mile, is the obvious star quality of Sophia Lillis, who must surely use this as a stepping-stone to a fine career, if she can master the emotional scenes as well as the charming quirky ones, at which she already excels. She reminds me a lot of Ellen Page, without the unlikely gravitas… yet. There is time to mature. I will be there for season 2 for sure, so it will be exciting to find out where it all goes next – this is a big opportunity for a BIG little show. I am only half sure they won’t fuck it up…
Based on the graphic novels of Charles Forsman, who also gave us The End of the F***ing World – an equally dark edged teen angst story, that has had 2 full seasons of similarly short episodes. It also continues the partnership of that series’ main director, British born Jonathon Entwistle, who seems happily stuck with this genre on his, as yet, limited CV. It stars the quirky charm of Sophia Lillis, best known from the It reboot movies, and Wyatt Oleff, also plucked from that franchise. And, oh yeah, it shares production credits with a small show called Stranger Things; so it has a pop culture pedigree 100% guaranteed to attract a young audience.
In terms of tone and direction, it does wobble at the beginning, but also shows a lot of promise, thanks largely to the watchability of Lillis, who is perfectly cast as a nervy, nerdy teen with a lot of smarts, but not too many friends. The humour is black, the satire subtle, and the delivery is disarmingly adult; on the surface this is a high school comedy, but underneath it is a fucked up, biting exploration of grief, paranoia and anger (mis)management – it pushes boundaries on content, visually and in use of language that only Netflix can endorse and get away with. Which of course is what audiences want!
The premise is that after the suicide of her father, 17 year old Sydney Novak is having some emotional issues beyond the normal teenage stuff of zits on your thighs. As she keeps a secret journal to document her worries and thoughts (heard in voice-over consistently, giving it a definite graphic novel thought bubble vibe) we are in from the start on the possibility she may have a dubious superpower linked to being pissed off.
It takes a while for that aspect to kick in, however, so don’t expect big, showy, superhero set pieces; this is a comedy drama that borrows from every teenage trope available, and is focussed more on the troubles of high school, a single mom and general growing pains. It is funny – I laughed, and found it a charming mix of something really modern feeling, but with retro vibes; it is clearly 2020, but could be 1985, a trick Stranger Things has taught them well.
Really, it is almost all over before it gets started, with these brief episode times – which is smart; no time to waste, so it moves along, and is always endearingly entertaining. In essence, what we have here is a 2 1/2 hour pilot show, chopped into bite sized chunks and released as a tease for the main show, which will be series 2. Think of it as an origin story, if you will. Undoubtedly, that 2nd series is already on the way. Early critical response is solid, and in about another month you will be hearing everyone and their cat talking about it, for sure.
The lack of originality didn’t massively bother me, as you could see what they were trying to do with it, and the large appeal is to recreate a teen world that feels familiar and comfortable, and then play with those preconceptions, choosing the right moments to flip it upside down. Which eventually it does. The final episode of seven is an absolute doozy! Talk about teasing cliff-hangers! They really know how to keep us hooked!
The best thing about it, by a country mile, is the obvious star quality of Sophia Lillis, who must surely use this as a stepping-stone to a fine career, if she can master the emotional scenes as well as the charming quirky ones, at which she already excels. She reminds me a lot of Ellen Page, without the unlikely gravitas… yet. There is time to mature. I will be there for season 2 for sure, so it will be exciting to find out where it all goes next – this is a big opportunity for a BIG little show. I am only half sure they won’t fuck it up…
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) rated The Stand in TV
Feb 10, 2021
I've never written a full review before as I let my score tell the story for the film/TV show in my view and don't like to influence people by what I write, simply put watch it and make your own judgement but with this steaming pile of crap I've had to do this just to get the anger and loathing off my chest.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated A Vow So Bold and Deadly in Books
Jun 17, 2021
Regular readers will know that I devoured the Cursebreaker series earlier in the year but Netgalley were generous enough to provide the opportunity to listen to this fantastic audiobook in exchange for an honest review.
The final book in the Cursebreakers series is a hard thing to come to terms with. Brigid Kemmerer has been messing with our hearts for 2 books so far and she isn’t about to let us go without a fight! Rhen and Grey are on opposite sides of a war, Harper is (deservedly) super mad at Rhen and Lilith has returned, seemingly unharmed. Is there nothing that can stop the enchantress?
Similarly to the previous two books, A Vow so Bold and Deadly is written from multiple POVs but what I loved in comparison to A Heart so Fierce and Broken is that we got a lot more of Harper! I really felt that Lia Mara took a bit of Harper’s “airtime” in the last book.
I also specifically loved the audiobook version because any third party’s speech within a character’s POV is done in that character’s voice – Rhen voicing Lilith is particularly hilarious.
The characters themselves seem to fall in my favour as we progress through the series and AVSBAD was no exception.
I still loved Harper with her fierceness and her sarcasm. I think the physical journey in the book (this is me trying to not give any spoilers) really spoke to her as a character and her unwavering, loyal nature and the fact that her anger towards Rhen took a long time to dissipate felt very real. I also loved her friendship with Zo but I must admit that sometimes Harper did border on petty – I guess she is fairly young though.
Lia Mara was a great character in AHSFAB, she was a breath of fresh air and I really admired her fight for peace in a violent kingdom. However, shacking up with Grey has made this Queen a wet fish! For a woman who has been raised with the notion that you do not need a man to rule Lia Mara severely disappoints. I really didn’t understand her character in the final book, she was unable to stand up for herself and totally dependent on Grey, even pining after him at times. It was sickening.
Grey has been my favourite in both the previous books, even when he was scary Grey! Don’t get me wrong he hasn’t totally changed and it is nice to see his struggles in gaining the loyalty of people in Shyl Shallow BUT his coldness towards Harper and THAT ending….nah it didn’t sit well with me. The fact that Grey has a claim to Emberfall is bad enough (it seems to be the only Kingdom in the fictional universe which includes bastards in the laws of succession) but to completely disregard Rhen is not the Grey the readers know and love.
Speaking of Rhen, and I’m going to get a lot of hate for this, but Rhen has never been my favourite. He has gone from being a tortured prince to a torturing prince to a tortured prince again. He just doesn’t seem to develop. Yes, I felt sorry for him, particularly towards the end of the book but I didn’t love him. I nearly did in book 1 but then he ruined it in book 2 and has never redeemed himself. I particularly felt that the ending held no justice for Rhen – there was a clear path for a happily ever after for all and, while I love a good twist, I feel that Kemmerer’s choice of ending kind of kicked Rhen while he was down.
The ending of A Vow So Bold and Deadly definitely paves the way for a spin off book but that feels like it would centre more around Grey and Lia Mara and so I don’t know how much appetite I would have for it. I’d read it but it wouldn’t be top of my TBR.
Overall I liked this book, but I didn’t love it. I had such high expectations after ACSDAL and was willing to overlook AHSFAB as plot filler but this ending fell flat for me. As someone who has read both the book and listened to the audiobook I would recommend the audiobook as it seems to keep you interested in that first few hundred pages where very little happens.
The final book in the Cursebreakers series is a hard thing to come to terms with. Brigid Kemmerer has been messing with our hearts for 2 books so far and she isn’t about to let us go without a fight! Rhen and Grey are on opposite sides of a war, Harper is (deservedly) super mad at Rhen and Lilith has returned, seemingly unharmed. Is there nothing that can stop the enchantress?
Similarly to the previous two books, A Vow so Bold and Deadly is written from multiple POVs but what I loved in comparison to A Heart so Fierce and Broken is that we got a lot more of Harper! I really felt that Lia Mara took a bit of Harper’s “airtime” in the last book.
I also specifically loved the audiobook version because any third party’s speech within a character’s POV is done in that character’s voice – Rhen voicing Lilith is particularly hilarious.
The characters themselves seem to fall in my favour as we progress through the series and AVSBAD was no exception.
I still loved Harper with her fierceness and her sarcasm. I think the physical journey in the book (this is me trying to not give any spoilers) really spoke to her as a character and her unwavering, loyal nature and the fact that her anger towards Rhen took a long time to dissipate felt very real. I also loved her friendship with Zo but I must admit that sometimes Harper did border on petty – I guess she is fairly young though.
Lia Mara was a great character in AHSFAB, she was a breath of fresh air and I really admired her fight for peace in a violent kingdom. However, shacking up with Grey has made this Queen a wet fish! For a woman who has been raised with the notion that you do not need a man to rule Lia Mara severely disappoints. I really didn’t understand her character in the final book, she was unable to stand up for herself and totally dependent on Grey, even pining after him at times. It was sickening.
Grey has been my favourite in both the previous books, even when he was scary Grey! Don’t get me wrong he hasn’t totally changed and it is nice to see his struggles in gaining the loyalty of people in Shyl Shallow BUT his coldness towards Harper and THAT ending….nah it didn’t sit well with me. The fact that Grey has a claim to Emberfall is bad enough (it seems to be the only Kingdom in the fictional universe which includes bastards in the laws of succession) but to completely disregard Rhen is not the Grey the readers know and love.
Speaking of Rhen, and I’m going to get a lot of hate for this, but Rhen has never been my favourite. He has gone from being a tortured prince to a torturing prince to a tortured prince again. He just doesn’t seem to develop. Yes, I felt sorry for him, particularly towards the end of the book but I didn’t love him. I nearly did in book 1 but then he ruined it in book 2 and has never redeemed himself. I particularly felt that the ending held no justice for Rhen – there was a clear path for a happily ever after for all and, while I love a good twist, I feel that Kemmerer’s choice of ending kind of kicked Rhen while he was down.
The ending of A Vow So Bold and Deadly definitely paves the way for a spin off book but that feels like it would centre more around Grey and Lia Mara and so I don’t know how much appetite I would have for it. I’d read it but it wouldn’t be top of my TBR.
Overall I liked this book, but I didn’t love it. I had such high expectations after ACSDAL and was willing to overlook AHSFAB as plot filler but this ending fell flat for me. As someone who has read both the book and listened to the audiobook I would recommend the audiobook as it seems to keep you interested in that first few hundred pages where very little happens.
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Fallen Angel in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Genre: Contemporary Adult
Average Goodreads Rating: 4.27
My Rating: 2.5
“What do you see when you look into my eyes?” I asked breathlessly and not entirely sure where the question had come from.
“All there is to know,” was his reply. “What do you see when you look into my eyes, Brooke?” he whispered, there was a slight anger to his voice.
I trembled. “An abyss and danger,” was all I could say.
I found Fallen Angel when I was looking for angel/mortal romance novels. Even though Fallen Angel was listed as a mafia romance and not not the supernatural romance I was looking for, I picked it up anyway. And at first it was great.
It immediately started out with a strong love story. Brooke is in the midst of an existential crisis after breaking up with her long-time boyfriend. When she visits her best friend Sam in New York, she ends up meeting billionaire Robert Stone, a handsome CEO who doesn’t know how to take no for an answer. To the point of being a jerk about it. But at least he’s self aware about that.
“I’m worried that I might hurt you. I have a knack of doing that when people get too close to me, a defense mechanism, I guess.”
No one pretends Robert is a great boyfriend, which I love. There are too many alpha billionaires out there that are disturbingly abusive while everyone pretends it’s a normal relationship. Not here. Robert’s actually one of the first to admit that he’s not a good boyfriend and he’s never had a real relationship. Which is great. I love flawed heroes. And when Robert does get better at communicating his feelings, it’s worth it.
“I love you, Brooke. You’ll never know just how much because there are no words.”
And Brooke is strong enough to handle him. She stands up to Robert when he disses Sam for being gay (which, by the way, I hated a lot. You can be a flawed badass without being a homophobe. Ugh. Major turn-off for me) and when he makes a big deal about her wearing a revealing dress.
“I wore it for you and not for anyone else. If people can see my body, so what? You’re the only one touching it,” I told him.
Brooke’s even a trained kick boxer. She’s incredibly strong and perfect to help Robert get over his past.
Then the story falls flat.
tired-and-bored-boy-sleep-014
After their second fight and make up, the story gets monotonous real fast. A lot of sex scenes– which, to be fair, were actually hot and well-written– and a lot of the mundane stuff. Brooke hanging out with Sam and Scott, Brooke working, Brooke attending one event or another with Robert. The story just dragged. And with the actual story dragging, the amount of comma splices and run-on sentences became more noticeable to me and book was practically unreadable. I had to make myself finish because I had already invested so much time into it.
It’s not like there wasn’t potential for more plot. There’s a jealous ex girlfriend out to steal Robert back and Brooke’s ex boyfriend can’t accept their break up. Brooke takes a troubled teen under her wing and isn’t this supposed to be a mafia romance?
And yet the majority of the middle of the book is sex, clothes, work days, and how great Brooke is for Robert. On top of that, Brooke loses a lot of the strength and independence I saw earlier in the book. In fact, she turned into a love sick teen.
Our souls, so entwined, were part of each other, true soul mates. Not even death would separate us.
marrypoppinsareyouill
To make matters worse, Robert’s criminal background isn’t revealed until three quarters of the way through the story! And since he got out of illegal activities years before he met Brooke, it’s really anticlimactic. Brooke makes a huge deal out of it and almost leaves him because of his past, which makes me dislike her even more. The criminal element actually seems more like an after thought to this so-called mafia romance. I’m really surprised it has such a high rating on Goodreads because I found it pretty disappointing. My rating is 2.5 stars because of the strong beginning, but I definitely won’t be reading any more of the Fallen Angel series.
Average Goodreads Rating: 4.27
My Rating: 2.5
“What do you see when you look into my eyes?” I asked breathlessly and not entirely sure where the question had come from.
“All there is to know,” was his reply. “What do you see when you look into my eyes, Brooke?” he whispered, there was a slight anger to his voice.
I trembled. “An abyss and danger,” was all I could say.
I found Fallen Angel when I was looking for angel/mortal romance novels. Even though Fallen Angel was listed as a mafia romance and not not the supernatural romance I was looking for, I picked it up anyway. And at first it was great.
It immediately started out with a strong love story. Brooke is in the midst of an existential crisis after breaking up with her long-time boyfriend. When she visits her best friend Sam in New York, she ends up meeting billionaire Robert Stone, a handsome CEO who doesn’t know how to take no for an answer. To the point of being a jerk about it. But at least he’s self aware about that.
“I’m worried that I might hurt you. I have a knack of doing that when people get too close to me, a defense mechanism, I guess.”
No one pretends Robert is a great boyfriend, which I love. There are too many alpha billionaires out there that are disturbingly abusive while everyone pretends it’s a normal relationship. Not here. Robert’s actually one of the first to admit that he’s not a good boyfriend and he’s never had a real relationship. Which is great. I love flawed heroes. And when Robert does get better at communicating his feelings, it’s worth it.
“I love you, Brooke. You’ll never know just how much because there are no words.”
And Brooke is strong enough to handle him. She stands up to Robert when he disses Sam for being gay (which, by the way, I hated a lot. You can be a flawed badass without being a homophobe. Ugh. Major turn-off for me) and when he makes a big deal about her wearing a revealing dress.
“I wore it for you and not for anyone else. If people can see my body, so what? You’re the only one touching it,” I told him.
Brooke’s even a trained kick boxer. She’s incredibly strong and perfect to help Robert get over his past.
Then the story falls flat.
tired-and-bored-boy-sleep-014
After their second fight and make up, the story gets monotonous real fast. A lot of sex scenes– which, to be fair, were actually hot and well-written– and a lot of the mundane stuff. Brooke hanging out with Sam and Scott, Brooke working, Brooke attending one event or another with Robert. The story just dragged. And with the actual story dragging, the amount of comma splices and run-on sentences became more noticeable to me and book was practically unreadable. I had to make myself finish because I had already invested so much time into it.
It’s not like there wasn’t potential for more plot. There’s a jealous ex girlfriend out to steal Robert back and Brooke’s ex boyfriend can’t accept their break up. Brooke takes a troubled teen under her wing and isn’t this supposed to be a mafia romance?
And yet the majority of the middle of the book is sex, clothes, work days, and how great Brooke is for Robert. On top of that, Brooke loses a lot of the strength and independence I saw earlier in the book. In fact, she turned into a love sick teen.
Our souls, so entwined, were part of each other, true soul mates. Not even death would separate us.
marrypoppinsareyouill
To make matters worse, Robert’s criminal background isn’t revealed until three quarters of the way through the story! And since he got out of illegal activities years before he met Brooke, it’s really anticlimactic. Brooke makes a huge deal out of it and almost leaves him because of his past, which makes me dislike her even more. The criminal element actually seems more like an after thought to this so-called mafia romance. I’m really surprised it has such a high rating on Goodreads because I found it pretty disappointing. My rating is 2.5 stars because of the strong beginning, but I definitely won’t be reading any more of the Fallen Angel series.