Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Greenland (2020) in Movies
Feb 11, 2021
A disaster movie starring Gerard Butler? Of course I was desperate to see it!
John Garrity has a golden ticket to survive the incoming apocalypse. A comet is heading to Earth and debris is wreaking havoc, but no one truly knew the trouble the world was facing. As the clock ticks down, it's a race for survival.
While the big plot point of this film was the disaster, it was actually quite heavily focused on the family drama... and I'm not going to lie, that made me a little disappointed early on.
I think it's best not to query certain things in Greenland... yeah, probably a lot of things you shouldn't think about really.
Greenland reminds me of Volcano in some instances. The ups and downs of what happens to the people in the disaster can be seen, though in this instance the focus is on the Garrity family and we see little of peripheral characters directly. But never the less, you're able to follow that rollercoaster of emotions as you go through the film and feel the highs and lows, as well as the hope and devastation.
Obviously Gerard Butler in a disaster films screams five stars. I loved Geo-Storm and watch it frequently, so I was fairly confident that this was going to be an instant favourite. Butler in an action film does call to me, and I like him with a bit of humour, but this was a solid drama and he nailed it. He gets several moments that perfectly show the character's emotional journey, and I felt that impact (pun intended?).
Garrity's wife is played by the wonderful Morena Baccarin. She also has the opportunity for some powerful moments, and one of them hits you like a dump truck. Along with Butler they work as impressive and strong leads to the individual stems of the film.
Unusually I found all the additional cast to be good too, there's normally someone that isn't quite my cup of tea, but I was pleasantly surprised that I didn't find that here. There wasn't a moment that took me out of the film at all. While the rest of the acting takes a back seat to the leads once the acting started there were a few amazing moments early on from the Garrity's neighbours. Claire Bronson as Debra (I really hope I got the right actress here) has one of the most incredible moments, and it truly got to me. There were so many moments that made me cry or hold my breath, even the second time around... I really can't fault the acting.
When it comes to the effects I get really sad. In the trailer you see a piece of debris crash into the planet and some of the following scene plays out. That moment in full is incredible to watch, the build up to it and the ripple effects it causes are such a strong moment that helped to cement the severity of the situation... I felt it from my TV, hell, I felt it when I watch it from my iPad... but I couldn't help but think about how amazing it would have been to experience that at the cinema.
As cheesy as some disaster film effects can be, and let's face it, there are some truly dire disaster films out there if you know where to look, there wasn't a moment in Greenland where it felt unrealistic. The effects all looked natural (within the scope of my knowledge in the real world... and crappy made for TV disaster movies) and that really helped with the drama.
How can I sum up Greenland? The emotional performances, the effects, the colour palette of the film... it all combined for an excellent watch. I've seen it twice already, and I'll absolutely be watching it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/greenland-movie-review.html
John Garrity has a golden ticket to survive the incoming apocalypse. A comet is heading to Earth and debris is wreaking havoc, but no one truly knew the trouble the world was facing. As the clock ticks down, it's a race for survival.
While the big plot point of this film was the disaster, it was actually quite heavily focused on the family drama... and I'm not going to lie, that made me a little disappointed early on.
I think it's best not to query certain things in Greenland... yeah, probably a lot of things you shouldn't think about really.
Greenland reminds me of Volcano in some instances. The ups and downs of what happens to the people in the disaster can be seen, though in this instance the focus is on the Garrity family and we see little of peripheral characters directly. But never the less, you're able to follow that rollercoaster of emotions as you go through the film and feel the highs and lows, as well as the hope and devastation.
Obviously Gerard Butler in a disaster films screams five stars. I loved Geo-Storm and watch it frequently, so I was fairly confident that this was going to be an instant favourite. Butler in an action film does call to me, and I like him with a bit of humour, but this was a solid drama and he nailed it. He gets several moments that perfectly show the character's emotional journey, and I felt that impact (pun intended?).
Garrity's wife is played by the wonderful Morena Baccarin. She also has the opportunity for some powerful moments, and one of them hits you like a dump truck. Along with Butler they work as impressive and strong leads to the individual stems of the film.
Unusually I found all the additional cast to be good too, there's normally someone that isn't quite my cup of tea, but I was pleasantly surprised that I didn't find that here. There wasn't a moment that took me out of the film at all. While the rest of the acting takes a back seat to the leads once the acting started there were a few amazing moments early on from the Garrity's neighbours. Claire Bronson as Debra (I really hope I got the right actress here) has one of the most incredible moments, and it truly got to me. There were so many moments that made me cry or hold my breath, even the second time around... I really can't fault the acting.
When it comes to the effects I get really sad. In the trailer you see a piece of debris crash into the planet and some of the following scene plays out. That moment in full is incredible to watch, the build up to it and the ripple effects it causes are such a strong moment that helped to cement the severity of the situation... I felt it from my TV, hell, I felt it when I watch it from my iPad... but I couldn't help but think about how amazing it would have been to experience that at the cinema.
As cheesy as some disaster film effects can be, and let's face it, there are some truly dire disaster films out there if you know where to look, there wasn't a moment in Greenland where it felt unrealistic. The effects all looked natural (within the scope of my knowledge in the real world... and crappy made for TV disaster movies) and that really helped with the drama.
How can I sum up Greenland? The emotional performances, the effects, the colour palette of the film... it all combined for an excellent watch. I've seen it twice already, and I'll absolutely be watching it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/greenland-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Army of Thieves (2021) in Movies
Nov 4, 2021
“Did He Just Say Gulp?”
I have Covid-19, and am confined to quarters. So time to catch up on some streaming films. New on Netflix is “Army of Thieves”, a quirky prequel, of sorts, to Zac Snyder’s “Army of the Dead“.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Godzilla (1954) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
The beginning was inspired...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was first introduced to Godzilla in cartoon form in the 1980′s as a child, but it wasn't until 1998, with Roland Emmerich's blockbuster reboot that I had seen the infamous beast on the pearl screen. I had also seem bits and bobs of the many original sequels as a child and they had made absolutely no impact on me what so ever! But I became aware of the significance of this, the original, only recently and it was due to this discovery that I hunted down the best copy available.
I ended up with the 2005 Region 1 release, which also includes the U.S. reworking from 1956, Godzilla: King Of The Monsters!. I could not have imagined that a the 1954 version of Godzilla, or more literally, Gojira, could have been so mature, so sombre, or so tempered with its sledgehammer philosophising. Produced just nine years after the devastating nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which effectively ended the Second World War, Gojira takes up the mantle on doing what Science Fiction does best, and created the cypher in the form of Godzilla, to represent the devastation left over from the nuking of these cities.
Godzilla is a nuclear beast, affected by U.S. nuclear tests and is now toxically radioactive and upon landfall on Tokyo, rains down, literally, nuclear destruction up on the city, in a manner not dissimilar too that levied upon either of the cities, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But its not just about that. It about the creation of the next WMD which would ultimately be used against Godzilla but poses and moral dilemma that Robert Oppenheimer himself would appreciate, as to whether such a creation should be allowed to be developed. It also looks quite seriously into establishing the potential evolution of a creature such as Godzilla and uses plausible palaeontological arguments to justify his existence.
The pacing was good and though Godzilla strikes from almost the opening frame, there is a sense of an ongoing crisis rather than an impending apocalypse, with news outlets reporting throughout as plans, both military and civilian are sited.
All in all, this is not just the birth of the massive and largely corny and cheap Godzilla series, it is a striking, intelligent, moving and incredibly well judged masterpiece of 50′s cinema. But I should have known. Most rubbish franchises began with an inspired first movie, something to break the mould and this does the job perfectly.
But it isn't without its flaws. The special effects, though not all bad, are below par even for the time, but effective as for telling the story, some were very good with ALL being well conceived and ambitious. Some were very poor though, such as the model ships, which were unnecessarily below the standards and look like bath toys. But the cinematography was wonderful, with Honda shooting this in a classically manner. Tension was built brilliantly and the action rose to several crescendos and the excellent score by Akira Ifukube was not overused but brought to perfect effect when needed.
The acting was first-rate as well, proving Japanese cinemas reputation. But this was my first real foray into Japanese cinema, and what a treat it was. Many would look at this and see a cheap old film and others will see a film that whist let down by some less that brilliant visual effects and the fact that a lot of people, certainly in the U.K. find subtitles difficult, as a masterpiece not only of Eastern cinema but of cinema full stop. Truly realising its narrative and spirit, its cause and message. This was about a county in mourning not only for the hundreds of thousands lost by Fat Man and Little Boy, but for the war full stop. The 1950′s were a time of great political fear and reconstruction after WW2, and this is a film which taps into the brewing Cold War and fear of annihilation from human behemoths which once released can never be returned.
HIGHLY recommended but not for children as they will bore, miss the point, get put off by the subtitles, black and white and quite frankly its a mature and bleak film and not the 1998 remake. And thank God or Godzilla for that!
I ended up with the 2005 Region 1 release, which also includes the U.S. reworking from 1956, Godzilla: King Of The Monsters!. I could not have imagined that a the 1954 version of Godzilla, or more literally, Gojira, could have been so mature, so sombre, or so tempered with its sledgehammer philosophising. Produced just nine years after the devastating nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which effectively ended the Second World War, Gojira takes up the mantle on doing what Science Fiction does best, and created the cypher in the form of Godzilla, to represent the devastation left over from the nuking of these cities.
Godzilla is a nuclear beast, affected by U.S. nuclear tests and is now toxically radioactive and upon landfall on Tokyo, rains down, literally, nuclear destruction up on the city, in a manner not dissimilar too that levied upon either of the cities, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But its not just about that. It about the creation of the next WMD which would ultimately be used against Godzilla but poses and moral dilemma that Robert Oppenheimer himself would appreciate, as to whether such a creation should be allowed to be developed. It also looks quite seriously into establishing the potential evolution of a creature such as Godzilla and uses plausible palaeontological arguments to justify his existence.
The pacing was good and though Godzilla strikes from almost the opening frame, there is a sense of an ongoing crisis rather than an impending apocalypse, with news outlets reporting throughout as plans, both military and civilian are sited.
All in all, this is not just the birth of the massive and largely corny and cheap Godzilla series, it is a striking, intelligent, moving and incredibly well judged masterpiece of 50′s cinema. But I should have known. Most rubbish franchises began with an inspired first movie, something to break the mould and this does the job perfectly.
But it isn't without its flaws. The special effects, though not all bad, are below par even for the time, but effective as for telling the story, some were very good with ALL being well conceived and ambitious. Some were very poor though, such as the model ships, which were unnecessarily below the standards and look like bath toys. But the cinematography was wonderful, with Honda shooting this in a classically manner. Tension was built brilliantly and the action rose to several crescendos and the excellent score by Akira Ifukube was not overused but brought to perfect effect when needed.
The acting was first-rate as well, proving Japanese cinemas reputation. But this was my first real foray into Japanese cinema, and what a treat it was. Many would look at this and see a cheap old film and others will see a film that whist let down by some less that brilliant visual effects and the fact that a lot of people, certainly in the U.K. find subtitles difficult, as a masterpiece not only of Eastern cinema but of cinema full stop. Truly realising its narrative and spirit, its cause and message. This was about a county in mourning not only for the hundreds of thousands lost by Fat Man and Little Boy, but for the war full stop. The 1950′s were a time of great political fear and reconstruction after WW2, and this is a film which taps into the brewing Cold War and fear of annihilation from human behemoths which once released can never be returned.
HIGHLY recommended but not for children as they will bore, miss the point, get put off by the subtitles, black and white and quite frankly its a mature and bleak film and not the 1998 remake. And thank God or Godzilla for that!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Cinematic Redbull
Up until a week ago, I was really looking forward to this film. Mad Max as a series has a criminally underestimated impact on our pop culture psyche thanks to its unique aesthetic. Everyone now knows exactly what they want to do in the event of the apocalypse; strap dustbin lids and S&M gear to our bodies.
Then I remembered that other recent reboot of a beloved 80’s sci-fi film, 2014’s Robocop. Specifically, I remembered that it was absolutely awful, a broken train-wreck of a movie that doesn’t understand and full on resents the original film, and drained all the personality out of a film bursting with it. 2012’s Total Recall shared similar problems, so the question came; would this modern reboot of an 80’s genre classic be the first of its kind to match the quality of the original?
The answer is no. It is far, far better.
The original Mad Max films each had the budget of a school nativity play and relied entirely on the scrapyard aesthetic and charismatic villains rather than action. Fury Road, on the other hand, is the cinematic equivalent of Red Bull; fast paced, frenetic and wild. The action sequences are almost constant, only broken up when the audience’s hearts are about to burst, accompanied by one of the most energetic and brilliant soundtracks I’ve ever heard. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker it would be too much to handle, but Miller makes sure to frame and edit each scene in a way that allows the audience to always follow the action.
Visually, the film is much more in line with Alejandro Jodorowsky’s failed Dune adaptation than anything else, with its deformed mutants, impractical clothes and grungy mechanics. Every image on screen is madder than the last; the audience will probably ask “Why does that guy have a flamethrower guitar?” or “Why is there a fat dude in a business suit with his nipples exposed?” and the film just says “Because you wanted to see it and didn’t know you did.” And it is totally right. Like Big Game, the landscapes are achingly beautiful too, turning a barren desert into a sea of colours.
The plot is utter gibberish; there is absolutely no reason that any series of events would lead to the world looking the way it does and the characters looking and acting the way they do. Most films would be ashamed of this and try to handwave it away or explain it; Fury Road, however, takes the smarter option, and full on embraces the insanity. Characters spout lines like “I have seen the three gates” and “You will ride with silver and chrome” without irony, and it all just works, sweeping the audience up into a world where logic is superfluous as long as what you’re saying is cool.
This wouldn’t work if the acting wasn’t on point, but every single actor is completely game for the madcap lunacy that is the
script. Everyone sings their lines, which might be nonsense but just sound so good. The only weak spot is Tom Hardy as Max himself, who tries to be a calming anchor to contrast everyone else but instead seems like he came out of a different, much more boring film. In fact, Max seems here only so the film can be called Mad Max, because really it is Charlize Theron’s movie; Imperator Furiosa is the true main character and Theron easily gives the most nuanced performance.
Upon seeing this film, I genuinely had to go for a jog to get all of the energy out of me. This film is mad glory from beginning to end, a fireworks show for the eyes and ears. One of the best action films of the year in an already good year for the genre. Certainly a much better reboot than Robocop. Now if you excuse me, I’m going to make a suit of armour out of washing machine parts and ball gags.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/19/cinematic-red-bull-mad-max-fury-road-review/
Then I remembered that other recent reboot of a beloved 80’s sci-fi film, 2014’s Robocop. Specifically, I remembered that it was absolutely awful, a broken train-wreck of a movie that doesn’t understand and full on resents the original film, and drained all the personality out of a film bursting with it. 2012’s Total Recall shared similar problems, so the question came; would this modern reboot of an 80’s genre classic be the first of its kind to match the quality of the original?
The answer is no. It is far, far better.
The original Mad Max films each had the budget of a school nativity play and relied entirely on the scrapyard aesthetic and charismatic villains rather than action. Fury Road, on the other hand, is the cinematic equivalent of Red Bull; fast paced, frenetic and wild. The action sequences are almost constant, only broken up when the audience’s hearts are about to burst, accompanied by one of the most energetic and brilliant soundtracks I’ve ever heard. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker it would be too much to handle, but Miller makes sure to frame and edit each scene in a way that allows the audience to always follow the action.
Visually, the film is much more in line with Alejandro Jodorowsky’s failed Dune adaptation than anything else, with its deformed mutants, impractical clothes and grungy mechanics. Every image on screen is madder than the last; the audience will probably ask “Why does that guy have a flamethrower guitar?” or “Why is there a fat dude in a business suit with his nipples exposed?” and the film just says “Because you wanted to see it and didn’t know you did.” And it is totally right. Like Big Game, the landscapes are achingly beautiful too, turning a barren desert into a sea of colours.
The plot is utter gibberish; there is absolutely no reason that any series of events would lead to the world looking the way it does and the characters looking and acting the way they do. Most films would be ashamed of this and try to handwave it away or explain it; Fury Road, however, takes the smarter option, and full on embraces the insanity. Characters spout lines like “I have seen the three gates” and “You will ride with silver and chrome” without irony, and it all just works, sweeping the audience up into a world where logic is superfluous as long as what you’re saying is cool.
This wouldn’t work if the acting wasn’t on point, but every single actor is completely game for the madcap lunacy that is the
script. Everyone sings their lines, which might be nonsense but just sound so good. The only weak spot is Tom Hardy as Max himself, who tries to be a calming anchor to contrast everyone else but instead seems like he came out of a different, much more boring film. In fact, Max seems here only so the film can be called Mad Max, because really it is Charlize Theron’s movie; Imperator Furiosa is the true main character and Theron easily gives the most nuanced performance.
Upon seeing this film, I genuinely had to go for a jog to get all of the energy out of me. This film is mad glory from beginning to end, a fireworks show for the eyes and ears. One of the best action films of the year in an already good year for the genre. Certainly a much better reboot than Robocop. Now if you excuse me, I’m going to make a suit of armour out of washing machine parts and ball gags.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/19/cinematic-red-bull-mad-max-fury-road-review/
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The One and Only in Books
Aug 21, 2018
Full review can also be found on my blog: www.diaryofdifference.com/2018/05/29/the-one-and-only-julia-ash-book-review/
<b><i>When bio-terrorism threatens to obscure humanity, one woman has the power to restore hope.</i></b>
Ruby Spencer is a wife and a mother. She also happens to be the only person that could save the people on Earth from dying! In moments when she is planning to resign from the U.S. Special Warfare Council, Ruby and her husband Clay are sent to one last mission.
With the last assignment being a low-risk mission to Taiwan where they need to analyze the zombie infection and consult with scientists, it seems like they are about to go on a long-deserved mini honeymoon.
But everything goes wrong! They get kidnapped, the biggest world powers all plan a war ahead, and it seems that only the ones that have Ruby are likely to win the war. They all fight over her, and she has no clue why. What makes her so special?
<img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcGYE79WkAErxL3.jpg"/>;
<b><i>Review:</i></b>
First of all, I have to thank the author, Julia Ash, for sending over this amazing book to me, in exchange for an honest review!
The beginning of The One and Only is extremely breathtaking! I believe that the beginning might be the best part of the book, actually! The flow of the story is well-thought, and I especially loved the scenes where the author refers to the past, and made me feel like there was another book before that. It is quite easy to catch up with the beginning and the brief details of the past, but if in the future there is a prequel that explains it all – I would love to be the first one to know about it!
Now, the characters are probably the reason that made the book the way it is! We have Ruby, who is our heroine, a brave lady, ready to give all the love, courage and wisdom in the world. She is a mother, a wife, and a brave fighter that never gives up and is never afraid to stand up against evil.
On the other hand, we have her husband – Clay. He was… alright. I suppose? His love for Ruby and their daughter is incredible, but somehow, I could think of him as a manly enough figure in their relationship. He was smart and brave, but not as smart and brave as Ruby.
I couldn’t somehow connect with him.
The character that intrigued me the most is Ox. I loved how Julia has shown us the psychological profile of this man, and the way he thinks. It was lovely reading about his part of his story, and even though he was on the wrong side, it is what he believes in. And the way it is written in so extraordinary, that at times I could see myself giving him an excuse.
The only part that I couldn’t agree with, and I am refusing to accept is – THE ENDING! I will withdraw myself from spoilers, but that’s not how things should have ended! That is not the ending I wanted, that is not the ending I was hoping for. No, no, no. It made me upset, and angry, and I wanted to break something very bad! That was a huge disappointment for me and it changed my whole perception of the story and the book itself.
If you ever get the chance to read this book – you should expect a lot of twists, a lot of ups and downs, and if you are like me and are trying hard to not bite your nails – well, you’re about to fail. This is not your typical book about zombie apocalypse. This is not your usual book about a heroine being kidnapped. This is not your usual book of how a person saves the world. This will be nothing like you expected, and everything you hoped for.
<b><i>When bio-terrorism threatens to obscure humanity, one woman has the power to restore hope.</i></b>
Ruby Spencer is a wife and a mother. She also happens to be the only person that could save the people on Earth from dying! In moments when she is planning to resign from the U.S. Special Warfare Council, Ruby and her husband Clay are sent to one last mission.
With the last assignment being a low-risk mission to Taiwan where they need to analyze the zombie infection and consult with scientists, it seems like they are about to go on a long-deserved mini honeymoon.
But everything goes wrong! They get kidnapped, the biggest world powers all plan a war ahead, and it seems that only the ones that have Ruby are likely to win the war. They all fight over her, and she has no clue why. What makes her so special?
<img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcGYE79WkAErxL3.jpg"/>;
<b><i>Review:</i></b>
First of all, I have to thank the author, Julia Ash, for sending over this amazing book to me, in exchange for an honest review!
The beginning of The One and Only is extremely breathtaking! I believe that the beginning might be the best part of the book, actually! The flow of the story is well-thought, and I especially loved the scenes where the author refers to the past, and made me feel like there was another book before that. It is quite easy to catch up with the beginning and the brief details of the past, but if in the future there is a prequel that explains it all – I would love to be the first one to know about it!
Now, the characters are probably the reason that made the book the way it is! We have Ruby, who is our heroine, a brave lady, ready to give all the love, courage and wisdom in the world. She is a mother, a wife, and a brave fighter that never gives up and is never afraid to stand up against evil.
On the other hand, we have her husband – Clay. He was… alright. I suppose? His love for Ruby and their daughter is incredible, but somehow, I could think of him as a manly enough figure in their relationship. He was smart and brave, but not as smart and brave as Ruby.
I couldn’t somehow connect with him.
The character that intrigued me the most is Ox. I loved how Julia has shown us the psychological profile of this man, and the way he thinks. It was lovely reading about his part of his story, and even though he was on the wrong side, it is what he believes in. And the way it is written in so extraordinary, that at times I could see myself giving him an excuse.
The only part that I couldn’t agree with, and I am refusing to accept is – THE ENDING! I will withdraw myself from spoilers, but that’s not how things should have ended! That is not the ending I wanted, that is not the ending I was hoping for. No, no, no. It made me upset, and angry, and I wanted to break something very bad! That was a huge disappointment for me and it changed my whole perception of the story and the book itself.
If you ever get the chance to read this book – you should expect a lot of twists, a lot of ups and downs, and if you are like me and are trying hard to not bite your nails – well, you’re about to fail. This is not your typical book about zombie apocalypse. This is not your usual book about a heroine being kidnapped. This is not your usual book of how a person saves the world. This will be nothing like you expected, and everything you hoped for.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Terminator Salvation (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Following up the legendary first two Terminator films was no easy task. Without series creator, James Cameron. many fans found “Terminator: Rise of the Machines” to be lacking the depth, action, and character of the earlier films. When Director McG was announced to continue the war between humanity and the machines in “Terminator Salvation” fans feared that the series might become a campy action film in the vein of the directors “Charlie’s Angels” films. Thankfully for fans, the film more than delivers and continues the dark and intensely human story about the battle for humanities’ survival against the ruthless computer network, Skynet.
The film opens in 2018 where John Connor (Christian Bale), is involved in a raid on a Skynet facility with a group of fellow soldiers. The team is attempting to gain sensitive information from the main servers about Skynet. Along the way, they discover many human prisoners are being kept by the machines and learn what they believe is a weakness in the network that will allow them to defeat Skynet once and for all.
In the aftermath of the mission, John is debriefed by the human leadership and learns that their names are on a Skynet kill list and ironically John is #2 on the list behind someone named Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin). While the name does not ring any bells with the command staff, John knows the name all too well and how his future, and all of humanity, hinges on this person staying alive.
At the same time, a man emerges named Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), who meets up with Reese. Together they flee from a an array of deadly machines intent on capturing Reese. In a spectacular action sequence, Reese and Marcus battle a giant machine as well as Hunter Killers and cycle-like assassins that are as relentless as their terminator counterparts. Separated from Reese by the enemy, Marcus meets a resistance pilot named Blair Williams (Moon Bloodgood), who convinces him to return to the resistance camp where John Connor can help him locate Reese.
Fates collide and a shocking secret is revealed that causes division in the resistance and places Connor at odds with his chain of command. As a pending strike on Skynet looms, Connor is forced to undertake a desperate mission to save the future, one that challenges much of what he believes and rocks the very foundation of the resistance. What follows is an intense series of events and an explosive series of action scenes that should delight fans of the series and sets the stage well for future films.
Bale brings his signature intensity to Connor, smoothly moving between the action and dramatic scenes well, something he’s had practice with as Batman. Worthington was a very pleasant surprise. His character not only has an interesting back-story but provides a great compass for the storyline. I did have some questions about how, in a post-Apocalypse setting, things like water were free from fallout, as were blasted out cities, and how military planes and ships survived without having their chips scrambled by a nuclear pulse. That being said, the film works very well. A strong cast and good action were well blended with great effects to create a winning formula. I did wonder where the plasma rifles that were shown in the earlier films were, but did remember that those were shown in a time 11 years in the future from this film.
Of great significance in James Cameron’s earlier films was the way he deftly combined action and real characters with a complex storyline. “Terminator Salvation” is not as deep as the first two films but it also does not rely on explosions of CGI effects to carry the story. At the core of the film is a bleak but human drama about love, sacrifice, survival, and determination. While some may have issues with the dark tone of the film, it is important to remember that this is about humanities’ struggle against extinction. McG keeps things moving at a brisk pace and has crafted a slick and enjoyable film that has many clever nods to the source material without ever being disrespectful to the franchise. I am looking forward to see what future films in the story will offer, as truly the battle for humanity has just begun.
The film opens in 2018 where John Connor (Christian Bale), is involved in a raid on a Skynet facility with a group of fellow soldiers. The team is attempting to gain sensitive information from the main servers about Skynet. Along the way, they discover many human prisoners are being kept by the machines and learn what they believe is a weakness in the network that will allow them to defeat Skynet once and for all.
In the aftermath of the mission, John is debriefed by the human leadership and learns that their names are on a Skynet kill list and ironically John is #2 on the list behind someone named Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin). While the name does not ring any bells with the command staff, John knows the name all too well and how his future, and all of humanity, hinges on this person staying alive.
At the same time, a man emerges named Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), who meets up with Reese. Together they flee from a an array of deadly machines intent on capturing Reese. In a spectacular action sequence, Reese and Marcus battle a giant machine as well as Hunter Killers and cycle-like assassins that are as relentless as their terminator counterparts. Separated from Reese by the enemy, Marcus meets a resistance pilot named Blair Williams (Moon Bloodgood), who convinces him to return to the resistance camp where John Connor can help him locate Reese.
Fates collide and a shocking secret is revealed that causes division in the resistance and places Connor at odds with his chain of command. As a pending strike on Skynet looms, Connor is forced to undertake a desperate mission to save the future, one that challenges much of what he believes and rocks the very foundation of the resistance. What follows is an intense series of events and an explosive series of action scenes that should delight fans of the series and sets the stage well for future films.
Bale brings his signature intensity to Connor, smoothly moving between the action and dramatic scenes well, something he’s had practice with as Batman. Worthington was a very pleasant surprise. His character not only has an interesting back-story but provides a great compass for the storyline. I did have some questions about how, in a post-Apocalypse setting, things like water were free from fallout, as were blasted out cities, and how military planes and ships survived without having their chips scrambled by a nuclear pulse. That being said, the film works very well. A strong cast and good action were well blended with great effects to create a winning formula. I did wonder where the plasma rifles that were shown in the earlier films were, but did remember that those were shown in a time 11 years in the future from this film.
Of great significance in James Cameron’s earlier films was the way he deftly combined action and real characters with a complex storyline. “Terminator Salvation” is not as deep as the first two films but it also does not rely on explosions of CGI effects to carry the story. At the core of the film is a bleak but human drama about love, sacrifice, survival, and determination. While some may have issues with the dark tone of the film, it is important to remember that this is about humanities’ struggle against extinction. McG keeps things moving at a brisk pace and has crafted a slick and enjoyable film that has many clever nods to the source material without ever being disrespectful to the franchise. I am looking forward to see what future films in the story will offer, as truly the battle for humanity has just begun.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Ten years is a long time in Hollywood. Ten years ago, to this day Avatar was yet to be released to the unsuspecting masses, with Titanic still reigning supreme over the global box-office and debutant director Ruben Fleischer surprised the cinema-going public with Zombieland.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Ambrose Beacon (The Solas Prophecy, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Review posted at <a title="The Ambrose Beacon by Alena Gouveia" href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2013/11/review-the-ambrose-beacon-by-alena-gouveia.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts<a/>
Note: Formatting is lost due to copy and paste, along with pictures and captions
<i><b>Disclaimer:</b> Review copy provided by author for review</i>
Let me blunt about The Ambrose Beacon: it was boring. It also became the third unfortunate book that lands into my DNF list and the first fantasy book oh wait. Not exactly the first... does the Caster Chronicles count as Fantasy, or does it count as Paranormal? If it counts as paranormal, then The Ambrose Beacon became the unfortunate first fantasy book I didn't finish.
So essentially, I give fair warning: I rated and reviewed it based on what I could manage to read so far. Which, I think I was being a bit lenient about, but I didn't throw the book against the wall, so it certainly didn't deserve a lower rating.
Now allow me to tell why I found it boring, and my general thoughts on it:
Larry and Jerry. They sound so similar (they rhyme as well), that I was befuddled and mistakenly read Jerry as Larry and vice-versa when it was really the other way around. They're best friends and one of them is the main character. How confusing can that get?
The characters don't seem to be in depth. While I get the why for Harper and Arianna, the other characters simply seem virtually pancake-like (no offense). Add to the fact that it suddenly switches POVs without some sort of sign. One minute it's Cole, the next? Dinah, Jerry, Harper, Vaughn, etc. >_<
Fairies. Probably one of my favorite things to read about, and it's not because they're sparkly and pretty and whatnot. But I was actually interested in Gouveia's take on fairies when the word was
mentioned in the earliest parts of the book.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be well written, nor realistic. I mean, doing magic in public. In front of human eyewitnesses. That doesn't sound like the typical faery to me that tries to not let the human world find out about them because then it's all, "IT'S THE APOCALYPSE. I must be seeing things," or maybe, "HOLY MONKEYS. FAIRIES EXIST" *rubs eyes to make sure it's not an illusion.* But the fairies here seem like a bounce off of Fantastic Four (even though I haven't watched the movie). More like superheroes than the sidhe.
The same thing is repeated, but in different variations. Oh hooray. Demons, demons and more demons. Same kind of demon, which isn't a problem for me, but the very fact that they tend to be doing the same thing over and over and over again throughout the entire book, which is the main reason why I stopped (I really did stop at exactly 50%). There's not a lot going on, although maybe if I had the time and gave the book further chances, there might be other things going on rather than "OMG, THERE'S A DEMON THAT WANTS MY HEAD ON A PLATTER. RUN." (or in the case here, it's fight to the death.)
Generally I like fantasy. I love the creative worlds and character and creatures made up that gives me a free ticket to travel okay, that applies to any book really without having to move a single inch, and the very fact that you can't exactly buy a plane ticket to the area in the first place. Someone tell me if we can really buy a plane ticket to the Faery Realms if you so disagree on that fact. Of course... I wouldn't exactly try and mess with fairies in the first place.
I tried liking the story. I thought first thought it was because of reading The Jungle, which is dreadfully boring, and it may have influenced my thoughts on this one. Then I read Allegiant for awhile and came back to it. It didn't work out well either (and Allegiant didn't bore me).
So simply put, The Ambrose Beacon is not really my cup of tea.
*eats a biscuit and avoids unsweetened tea*
I really hate giving bad reviews. Especially DNFs.
Note: Formatting is lost due to copy and paste, along with pictures and captions
<i><b>Disclaimer:</b> Review copy provided by author for review</i>
Let me blunt about The Ambrose Beacon: it was boring. It also became the third unfortunate book that lands into my DNF list and the first fantasy book oh wait. Not exactly the first... does the Caster Chronicles count as Fantasy, or does it count as Paranormal? If it counts as paranormal, then The Ambrose Beacon became the unfortunate first fantasy book I didn't finish.
So essentially, I give fair warning: I rated and reviewed it based on what I could manage to read so far. Which, I think I was being a bit lenient about, but I didn't throw the book against the wall, so it certainly didn't deserve a lower rating.
Now allow me to tell why I found it boring, and my general thoughts on it:
Larry and Jerry. They sound so similar (they rhyme as well), that I was befuddled and mistakenly read Jerry as Larry and vice-versa when it was really the other way around. They're best friends and one of them is the main character. How confusing can that get?
The characters don't seem to be in depth. While I get the why for Harper and Arianna, the other characters simply seem virtually pancake-like (no offense). Add to the fact that it suddenly switches POVs without some sort of sign. One minute it's Cole, the next? Dinah, Jerry, Harper, Vaughn, etc. >_<
Fairies. Probably one of my favorite things to read about, and it's not because they're sparkly and pretty and whatnot. But I was actually interested in Gouveia's take on fairies when the word was
mentioned in the earliest parts of the book.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be well written, nor realistic. I mean, doing magic in public. In front of human eyewitnesses. That doesn't sound like the typical faery to me that tries to not let the human world find out about them because then it's all, "IT'S THE APOCALYPSE. I must be seeing things," or maybe, "HOLY MONKEYS. FAIRIES EXIST" *rubs eyes to make sure it's not an illusion.* But the fairies here seem like a bounce off of Fantastic Four (even though I haven't watched the movie). More like superheroes than the sidhe.
The same thing is repeated, but in different variations. Oh hooray. Demons, demons and more demons. Same kind of demon, which isn't a problem for me, but the very fact that they tend to be doing the same thing over and over and over again throughout the entire book, which is the main reason why I stopped (I really did stop at exactly 50%). There's not a lot going on, although maybe if I had the time and gave the book further chances, there might be other things going on rather than "OMG, THERE'S A DEMON THAT WANTS MY HEAD ON A PLATTER. RUN." (or in the case here, it's fight to the death.)
Generally I like fantasy. I love the creative worlds and character and creatures made up that gives me a free ticket to travel okay, that applies to any book really without having to move a single inch, and the very fact that you can't exactly buy a plane ticket to the area in the first place. Someone tell me if we can really buy a plane ticket to the Faery Realms if you so disagree on that fact. Of course... I wouldn't exactly try and mess with fairies in the first place.
I tried liking the story. I thought first thought it was because of reading The Jungle, which is dreadfully boring, and it may have influenced my thoughts on this one. Then I read Allegiant for awhile and came back to it. It didn't work out well either (and Allegiant didn't bore me).
So simply put, The Ambrose Beacon is not really my cup of tea.
*eats a biscuit and avoids unsweetened tea*
I really hate giving bad reviews. Especially DNFs.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Home Alone (1990) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
It's not Christmas until Kevin says "I've made my family disappear." In fact, it's probably one of the few that I actively watch every year, and it's one of two that I'll happily watch at any time of the year. (The other being Die Hard... don't get on my case, you know it's a Christmas film.)
On December 7th Home Alone turned 28 in the UK. 1990... just wow. I'm feeling old enough without films I grew up with being called classics.
If you haven't considered your own Home Alone plan... well, what have you been doing with your life?! As a tip, if you already have a zombie apocalypse plan in place then it's very easily adapted, you just need a little less lethal force. And it's probably best for me to remind you not to actually try this at home, because I'm not convinced that Harry and Marv would have survived. (And if we take the results from Better Watch Out then you're probably looking at some kind of murder charge.)
In December they were showing Home Alone a few times at Cineworld so it would have been rude not to go at least once to see it. I'm really getting into the classic releases on the big screen, it's so much fun. The show I picked was basically populated by adults, just two children brought along by their parents. We were all roaring with laughter, the comedy never gets old.
The music of Home Alone is instantly recognisable and yet I always forget that it's one of John Williams' epic creations. You can't hear it without thinking of the specific scene in the film it relates to, and it's certainly influences a lot of films since. Something that again I hadn't really noticed until I watched the Christmas horror film, Secret Santa (review coming soon).
It always fills me with questions though... Do all Americans have telephones with cords that are about 20 feet long? How did Buzz manage to shove that entire pizza slice in his mouth? Why did Leslie ever marry Frank? Why is Jimmy in the shop so over enthusiastic? How does Kevin manage to create all his traps in such a short amount of time? And who on Earth leaves their house that tidy when they're leaving for holiday? Especially when you consider they left in such a hurry!
The idea is such a fun one, I can see why it's so popular all this time later. Watching it more and more though you do realise that Culkin's acting was pretty bad, but that just adds to its charm.
Watching it with a group of people who already love the film really made it a better viewing. We all laughed at the amazing prat falls from Joe Pesci on the ice and the walls of the cinema caved in slightly as we all took a sharp intake of breath as Marv stood on that nail. It's genuinely more fun to roar with laughter with other fans.
It's sad to think that Home Alone could never happen these days. (Although Google did bring us an advert that gave us a peak at what might happen. I've put the video at the end of the post.) Kevin probably has several smart devices that they could contact or track, the house would also likely be equipped with state of the art surveillance and alarm systems that would have alerted someone to movement and doors opening. On the flip side though it's quite fun to think about what sort of traps Kevin could be creating with the wonders of modern technology. I'd say lets get a petition going to see that happen but while Home Alone 4 was passable I don't think we really need any more of them.
What you should do
This should be in everyone's Christmas film rotation. If you don't watch it at least once a year... well... *shakes head*.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Everyone needs those quick inventing skills, but I'm actually going to go with Kevin's other superpower... his amazing ability to make epic ice cream sundaes.
On December 7th Home Alone turned 28 in the UK. 1990... just wow. I'm feeling old enough without films I grew up with being called classics.
If you haven't considered your own Home Alone plan... well, what have you been doing with your life?! As a tip, if you already have a zombie apocalypse plan in place then it's very easily adapted, you just need a little less lethal force. And it's probably best for me to remind you not to actually try this at home, because I'm not convinced that Harry and Marv would have survived. (And if we take the results from Better Watch Out then you're probably looking at some kind of murder charge.)
In December they were showing Home Alone a few times at Cineworld so it would have been rude not to go at least once to see it. I'm really getting into the classic releases on the big screen, it's so much fun. The show I picked was basically populated by adults, just two children brought along by their parents. We were all roaring with laughter, the comedy never gets old.
The music of Home Alone is instantly recognisable and yet I always forget that it's one of John Williams' epic creations. You can't hear it without thinking of the specific scene in the film it relates to, and it's certainly influences a lot of films since. Something that again I hadn't really noticed until I watched the Christmas horror film, Secret Santa (review coming soon).
It always fills me with questions though... Do all Americans have telephones with cords that are about 20 feet long? How did Buzz manage to shove that entire pizza slice in his mouth? Why did Leslie ever marry Frank? Why is Jimmy in the shop so over enthusiastic? How does Kevin manage to create all his traps in such a short amount of time? And who on Earth leaves their house that tidy when they're leaving for holiday? Especially when you consider they left in such a hurry!
The idea is such a fun one, I can see why it's so popular all this time later. Watching it more and more though you do realise that Culkin's acting was pretty bad, but that just adds to its charm.
Watching it with a group of people who already love the film really made it a better viewing. We all laughed at the amazing prat falls from Joe Pesci on the ice and the walls of the cinema caved in slightly as we all took a sharp intake of breath as Marv stood on that nail. It's genuinely more fun to roar with laughter with other fans.
It's sad to think that Home Alone could never happen these days. (Although Google did bring us an advert that gave us a peak at what might happen. I've put the video at the end of the post.) Kevin probably has several smart devices that they could contact or track, the house would also likely be equipped with state of the art surveillance and alarm systems that would have alerted someone to movement and doors opening. On the flip side though it's quite fun to think about what sort of traps Kevin could be creating with the wonders of modern technology. I'd say lets get a petition going to see that happen but while Home Alone 4 was passable I don't think we really need any more of them.
What you should do
This should be in everyone's Christmas film rotation. If you don't watch it at least once a year... well... *shakes head*.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Everyone needs those quick inventing skills, but I'm actually going to go with Kevin's other superpower... his amazing ability to make epic ice cream sundaes.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An ambitious but flawed finale
M. Night Shyamalan is back behind the camera! Quick, run! Joking aside, Shyamalan’s career is as convoluted as his signature third-act twists. Starting off with the fabulous The Sixth Sense and then almost derailing his career with catastrophic failures like The Happening, After Earth and dare I mention it, The Last Airbender, it appeared we had all but lost that once promising directorial flair.
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/