Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Robocop (1987) in Movies
Feb 12, 2018
Murphy's Law
Heavy metal action satire from Dutch director Paul Verhoeven that established him as one of the world's leading SF directors. The story is functional, if hardly original - dedicated cop is shot to pieces by bad guys, rebuilt as an armoured cyborg by heartless corporation, struggles to reclaim his humanity - but what makes it special is Verhoeven's ability to turn the movie on a dime, switching the mood from black comedy to sincere drama in a moment.
The setting is futuristic, but few films capture the look and feel of the 80s quite as effortlessly as Robocop. There are a few wobbles in the plotting and some uninspired supporting performances, but this is directed with heart and intelligence. At least as good as The Terminator or Aliens; would probably be much better remembered if any of the sequels had been any good.
The setting is futuristic, but few films capture the look and feel of the 80s quite as effortlessly as Robocop. There are a few wobbles in the plotting and some uninspired supporting performances, but this is directed with heart and intelligence. At least as good as The Terminator or Aliens; would probably be much better remembered if any of the sequels had been any good.
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Spenser Confidential (2020) in Movies
Mar 16, 2020
Good cop Bad cop
Contains spoilers, click to show
Spenser Confidential is a hard hitting action comedy, loosely based on the novel Wonderland by Ace Atkins, and stars Mark Wahlberg, Winston Duke, Alan Arkin, Iliza Shlesinger, Bokeem Woodbine, Donald Cerrone, Marc Maron, and Austin Post.
After a stretch in prison for a violent attack on another officer, Spenser is released, that night the officer who he did time for attacking is murdered, which throws Spensers name into the fire.
When a second officer from his former precinct is murdered, Spenser teams up with his no-nonsense roommate, Hawk, to take down criminals and uncover the truth before it's too late.
A great movie-
even though the story has had very similar ones berfore it, it's a nice throwback to them whilst injecting a dose of witt to it.
After a stretch in prison for a violent attack on another officer, Spenser is released, that night the officer who he did time for attacking is murdered, which throws Spensers name into the fire.
When a second officer from his former precinct is murdered, Spenser teams up with his no-nonsense roommate, Hawk, to take down criminals and uncover the truth before it's too late.
A great movie-
even though the story has had very similar ones berfore it, it's a nice throwback to them whilst injecting a dose of witt to it.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Last Man on Earth (1964) in Movies
Mar 30, 2020
What It Takes To Survive
The Last Man on Earth- is a excellent, fantasic, phenomenal movie. Thats all about surviving and survival. Being the only human alive. The Last man alive. And Vincent Price is that man and he is perfect and excellent. He usually plays a villian, now you see him as a anti hero, someone good, but bad.
The plot: The survivor (Vincent Price) of a global epidemic battles a race of zombie vampires in an adaptation of Richard Matheson's "I Am Legend."
This film is based on the 1954 novel I Am Legend by Richard Matheson. Which would be later a film that would star Will Smith in 2007. A underrared film.
This film is excellent and fantasic. Plus you have Vincent Pricr which is a huge plus in my books.
The plot: The survivor (Vincent Price) of a global epidemic battles a race of zombie vampires in an adaptation of Richard Matheson's "I Am Legend."
This film is based on the 1954 novel I Am Legend by Richard Matheson. Which would be later a film that would star Will Smith in 2007. A underrared film.
This film is excellent and fantasic. Plus you have Vincent Pricr which is a huge plus in my books.
Cybill Disobedience
Book
If you only ever buy one Hollywood autobiography make it this one. Sassy, shocking, funny and...
Eric (498 KP) rated Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) in Movies
Oct 26, 2020
Watching a novel.
I'm not sure if I have ever been disappointed that a movie follows it's source material so closely. I guess there if a first time for everything. Frankenstein is a story that has been retold so many times in so many different ways that one might wonder what the 1994 film had to offer. The answer is, not much.
The problem is director Kennth Branagh doesn't bring anything to this film as a director. It feels like everyone is going through the motions to do a straight adaptaion. There is really no energy here at all. It's not the acting is bad, but it lacks charisma all the way around.
Nothing stand out, there is no geuine fear here and no sense of drama, which might be unfair to say.
The problem is director Kennth Branagh doesn't bring anything to this film as a director. It feels like everyone is going through the motions to do a straight adaptaion. There is really no energy here at all. It's not the acting is bad, but it lacks charisma all the way around.
Nothing stand out, there is no geuine fear here and no sense of drama, which might be unfair to say.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Show Dogs (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Yes I'm giving it four stars and I don't care what you all say!! I laughed on more than one occasion and found it an amusing lift to my day... so ptttttttttttttt to all you misery guts who are saying it's terrible.
The only bad bit about the film was having to share the cinema with children on half term... although I was highly entertained when the 12 year old girl in front of me who had been snapchatting for 50% of the films dropped her phone on the floor.
It's daft humour and it really lifted my spirits, and those are the best movies to have. Even if the CGI panda and tiger were a little terrible.
To sum it up, this movie is basically Rush Hour with dogs. That alone should make you want to see it.
The only bad bit about the film was having to share the cinema with children on half term... although I was highly entertained when the 12 year old girl in front of me who had been snapchatting for 50% of the films dropped her phone on the floor.
It's daft humour and it really lifted my spirits, and those are the best movies to have. Even if the CGI panda and tiger were a little terrible.
To sum it up, this movie is basically Rush Hour with dogs. That alone should make you want to see it.
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle in Video Games
May 22, 2020 (Updated May 22, 2020)
Cant have certain characters at the same time (1 more)
Cant switch out mario
It'sa me another great mario videogame
Contains spoilers, click to show
After having a bit of a hit and miss scenario with Rayman, the Rabbids have decided to crash Mario's Party (see what I did there).
After an awkward malfunction involving a modded Nintendo power glove (because nothing says success like tampering with an item that wasn't fully functional in its best days) and a washing machine (of all things) the worlds of the Rabbids & mario & friends merge (Movie reference).
The game is a team turn based style shooter that is very fun to play, unlocking multiple characters along the way as Mario & Co. Double Dash (⬅ lol) through several stages of brightly coloured areas collecting coins & upgrades as Well as solving puzzle challenges.
After an awkward malfunction involving a modded Nintendo power glove (because nothing says success like tampering with an item that wasn't fully functional in its best days) and a washing machine (of all things) the worlds of the Rabbids & mario & friends merge (Movie reference).
The game is a team turn based style shooter that is very fun to play, unlocking multiple characters along the way as Mario & Co. Double Dash (⬅ lol) through several stages of brightly coloured areas collecting coins & upgrades as Well as solving puzzle challenges.
David McK (3557 KP) rated Blades of Glory (2007) in Movies
Apr 10, 2023
I've always found Will Ferrell to be a bit hit and miss: sometimes he is funny and has some good movies (Elf or The Lego movie belonging near the top); others are cringe-worthy bad (Step Brothers).
This one falls in the middle somewhere, with Ferrell starring as one half of the main duo Michaels and MacElroy (Jon Heder), two former Olympic figure-skating champions who have been stripped of their medals and banned from their sport after a public dust-up on the podium, but who have now discovered a loophole that will allow them to compete again as a pair (and as the first all-male pairing in the sport).
It's as ridiculous as it sounds.
Best bit? Probably the slow-speed chase near the end that shows why skates should only be worn on the ice!
This one falls in the middle somewhere, with Ferrell starring as one half of the main duo Michaels and MacElroy (Jon Heder), two former Olympic figure-skating champions who have been stripped of their medals and banned from their sport after a public dust-up on the podium, but who have now discovered a loophole that will allow them to compete again as a pair (and as the first all-male pairing in the sport).
It's as ridiculous as it sounds.
Best bit? Probably the slow-speed chase near the end that shows why skates should only be worn on the ice!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
Sophie Wink (11 KP) rated It's Kind of a Funny Story in Books
Jun 20, 2019
"Insightful and utterly authentic... This is an important book." - The New York Times Book Review
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.