Search
Search results
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Black Sails - Season 1 in TV
May 30, 2017
Great Cast (3 more)
Brilliant Action
Great Drama
Very Accurate (thought not 100%)
Game of Thrones with Pirates
I was unawares during my first initial viewing of this show that this was in fact a prequel of sorts to the famous classic novel by Robert Louis Stevenson, Treasure Island. Though I knew that I had heard the names Flint and John Silver among others. However, I must admit, I have never seen, nor read any adaptation of the classic (I know shameful) but I intend to as it is in my collection of books and has been for years. I collected the 'Golden Library' collection which contains nearly all of the most classic books that are must reads for any book worm, and though I do not claim to be a book worm nor a large reader of any kind, I take interest in anything to do with Pirates, Vikings, and most historical fiction.
This show is a great representation of the life and time of Piracy however, and I can review it from a point of view of someone who knows quite a bit about the golden age of piracy in actual historical facts. Unlike the previous pirate content I reviewed, Blackbeard, this show portrays pirates as scarred, dirty, bloody, and frightening in their own way. However, similar to the Blackbeard short series, the pirates and other characters all have near perfect teeth. It seems to be that only (in what I have seen anyways) the Pirate's of the Caribbean franchise has managed to nail the full historical accuracy of the look of a pirate from clothing, to makeup, to the teeth.
On the other hand, this does not cause much of a disturbance to the viewing of this show, because the drama is brilliant, if you can bare the somewhat slow plot lines unfold as there are many characters in this show, and each have a ship full of issues that all need resolving with very few of them actually being resolved. From love interests, to thievery, betrayal and all round general opposition between old allies and acquaintances. There is a lot of 'business' to deal with on the side of Eleanor Guthrie and her dealings with our main protagonists, among other important characters, some of which are based upon historical figures such as Captain Benjamin Hornigold, Charles Vane, Anne Bonny and Jack Rackham (known throughout history as Calico Jack). All portrayed as tough, cunning and sometimes (most times for Rackham) as humerous.
The production of this show is great, with beautiful sets, great looking props and special effects that make this a believable series to get lost in. It's one of the better pirate themed mediums that I have seen, and I personally really enjoy the drama and suspense of the episodes, as well as the twists and turns of certain scenario's which leave you wanting more.
The cast deliver great performances and make you believe that they are truly men or women to be feared, and not to be double crossed. From Charles Vane's tough exterior, to Eleanor Guthrie's power over trade in Nassau, and even Captain Flint's fear inducing presence, as we watch his secrets spill out into the hands of the wrong people.
This is a show I would recommend to anyone who enjoys the theme of pirates, with some fantasy and a lot of drama, but I should warn you, that it doesn't hold back with neither the nudity or the actions performed, during the state in which someone would be naked. Whether it's the whores in the brothel, or the few short term relationships between characters.
Minor Spoilers - nothing too important.
The first example you see of this extent of mature content, as well as some of the humour of this show, is when John Silver is taken into a whore house, and is told that 'Blackbeard' wishes to see him. When he enters, he finds a woman standing there, and as John Silver points out "You are not Blackbeard" only to discover that the beard, is revealed to be between her legs.
As I said, watch at your own risk but I would recommend it to anyone interested in the theme of Pirates during the Golden Age.
This show is a great representation of the life and time of Piracy however, and I can review it from a point of view of someone who knows quite a bit about the golden age of piracy in actual historical facts. Unlike the previous pirate content I reviewed, Blackbeard, this show portrays pirates as scarred, dirty, bloody, and frightening in their own way. However, similar to the Blackbeard short series, the pirates and other characters all have near perfect teeth. It seems to be that only (in what I have seen anyways) the Pirate's of the Caribbean franchise has managed to nail the full historical accuracy of the look of a pirate from clothing, to makeup, to the teeth.
On the other hand, this does not cause much of a disturbance to the viewing of this show, because the drama is brilliant, if you can bare the somewhat slow plot lines unfold as there are many characters in this show, and each have a ship full of issues that all need resolving with very few of them actually being resolved. From love interests, to thievery, betrayal and all round general opposition between old allies and acquaintances. There is a lot of 'business' to deal with on the side of Eleanor Guthrie and her dealings with our main protagonists, among other important characters, some of which are based upon historical figures such as Captain Benjamin Hornigold, Charles Vane, Anne Bonny and Jack Rackham (known throughout history as Calico Jack). All portrayed as tough, cunning and sometimes (most times for Rackham) as humerous.
The production of this show is great, with beautiful sets, great looking props and special effects that make this a believable series to get lost in. It's one of the better pirate themed mediums that I have seen, and I personally really enjoy the drama and suspense of the episodes, as well as the twists and turns of certain scenario's which leave you wanting more.
The cast deliver great performances and make you believe that they are truly men or women to be feared, and not to be double crossed. From Charles Vane's tough exterior, to Eleanor Guthrie's power over trade in Nassau, and even Captain Flint's fear inducing presence, as we watch his secrets spill out into the hands of the wrong people.
This is a show I would recommend to anyone who enjoys the theme of pirates, with some fantasy and a lot of drama, but I should warn you, that it doesn't hold back with neither the nudity or the actions performed, during the state in which someone would be naked. Whether it's the whores in the brothel, or the few short term relationships between characters.
Minor Spoilers - nothing too important.
The first example you see of this extent of mature content, as well as some of the humour of this show, is when John Silver is taken into a whore house, and is told that 'Blackbeard' wishes to see him. When he enters, he finds a woman standing there, and as John Silver points out "You are not Blackbeard" only to discover that the beard, is revealed to be between her legs.
As I said, watch at your own risk but I would recommend it to anyone interested in the theme of Pirates during the Golden Age.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated West Side Story (2021) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Very Good...but could have (SHOULD HAVE) been GREAT
One of the biggest disappointments in watching a Motion Picture is when a Film has all of the ingredients to be a GREAT film, but is knocked off this tier by one flaw - and sometimes - is knocked down to merely good by an egregious flaw.
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dark Crimes (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
great many of us film aficionados have, at one time or another, thought that they’ve seen so many films from so many different genres or written by so many ‘messed up’ writers or directed by so many warped minds that have simply ‘walked off the map’ that nothing and I mean absolutely nothing could shock us. We think we’ve ‘seen everything’ or have been ‘prepared’ for anything shocking that filmmakers might throw our way. As today’s film for your consideration will demonstrate, even folks like ‘us’ can be caught off guard by the occasional ‘curve ball’ by a writer, director, or actor/actress we’ve become acquainted with through their work over the years. I can say this much before we go any further … I have never seen nor did I ever imagine seeing Jim Carrey in a film like this.
Today’s selection is a 2016 Polish-American dramatic-mystery film entitled ‘Dark Crimes’. The film is based upon an article published in ‘The New Yorker’ in 2008 entitled ‘True Crime:A Post-Modern Murder Mystery’ by David Grann about convicted Polish murderer, writer, and photographer Krystian Bala. Directed by Alexandros Avranas and written by Jeremey Brock, ‘Dark Crimes’ stars Jim Carrey, Marton Csokas, Agata Kulesza, Kati Outinen, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Zbigniew Zamachowski. Jim Carrey is Detective Tadek. Formerly a highly decorated and respected detective, his recent work with the police department has been nothing more than administrative duties in the records department after a controversial case he was investigating involving an unsolved murder at a sex club was suddenly ‘shelved’ and he was relegated to his current desk job. A recent book by a controversial author Kozlow (Csokas), describes a murder almost identical to the unsolved murder of a businessman Tadek was investigating and even contains details that mirror many he discovered in his original investigation. After pleading with his immediate superior to allow him to continue examining the case, Tadek begins to delve deeper into the incident re-visiting the location of the murder and interviewing possible witnesses and others who may have been present or involved in the murder.
Soon Tadek’s determination overshadows everything else. He becomes paranoid and obsessed to such severity that he alienates his family and crosses lines professionally and personally as a sort of madness begins to take over. The moment he believes he has figured out the solution to the case that has become his obsession and cost him everything he has and the person he is, it all slips away as the truth about Kozlow’s involvement in the crime becomes clear and Tadek’s only remaining option is the one you don’t see coming.
This film is DARK and not for the faint of heart. The world knows Jim Carrey for comedy and that’s what he’ll ALWAYS be known for. This film metaphorically takes all that, throws it right out the window, then proceeds to run downstairs and then outside and stomp on it. Prepare to be shocked as this was Carrey like I’ve never seen him before. The film is dark, gritty, serious, and will tempt you to keep your finger on the ‘off button’ all the way through the film. In that regard, it is indeed a great film. It’s like a modern take on a classic well-written murder mystery novel where even in the end, the outcome is sometimes equal to if not worse than the actual crime itself. The world knows Marton Csokas for his villainous roles where he typically portrays Russian or Eastern European madmen and once again he does the same in this film with great flair. The film is rated R for strong and disturbing content and runs about an hour and a half so it’s most definitely NOT one for young folks. Which it late at night when it’s dark if you’re looking for something scary that will keep you awake all night. I’m going to give the film 3 out of 5 stars. It’s okay to see once but in all honesty, it’s nothing original that hasn’t been done in other films with other actors. This one is just a variation on a theme with deferent players and different aspects and details
Today’s selection is a 2016 Polish-American dramatic-mystery film entitled ‘Dark Crimes’. The film is based upon an article published in ‘The New Yorker’ in 2008 entitled ‘True Crime:A Post-Modern Murder Mystery’ by David Grann about convicted Polish murderer, writer, and photographer Krystian Bala. Directed by Alexandros Avranas and written by Jeremey Brock, ‘Dark Crimes’ stars Jim Carrey, Marton Csokas, Agata Kulesza, Kati Outinen, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Zbigniew Zamachowski. Jim Carrey is Detective Tadek. Formerly a highly decorated and respected detective, his recent work with the police department has been nothing more than administrative duties in the records department after a controversial case he was investigating involving an unsolved murder at a sex club was suddenly ‘shelved’ and he was relegated to his current desk job. A recent book by a controversial author Kozlow (Csokas), describes a murder almost identical to the unsolved murder of a businessman Tadek was investigating and even contains details that mirror many he discovered in his original investigation. After pleading with his immediate superior to allow him to continue examining the case, Tadek begins to delve deeper into the incident re-visiting the location of the murder and interviewing possible witnesses and others who may have been present or involved in the murder.
Soon Tadek’s determination overshadows everything else. He becomes paranoid and obsessed to such severity that he alienates his family and crosses lines professionally and personally as a sort of madness begins to take over. The moment he believes he has figured out the solution to the case that has become his obsession and cost him everything he has and the person he is, it all slips away as the truth about Kozlow’s involvement in the crime becomes clear and Tadek’s only remaining option is the one you don’t see coming.
This film is DARK and not for the faint of heart. The world knows Jim Carrey for comedy and that’s what he’ll ALWAYS be known for. This film metaphorically takes all that, throws it right out the window, then proceeds to run downstairs and then outside and stomp on it. Prepare to be shocked as this was Carrey like I’ve never seen him before. The film is dark, gritty, serious, and will tempt you to keep your finger on the ‘off button’ all the way through the film. In that regard, it is indeed a great film. It’s like a modern take on a classic well-written murder mystery novel where even in the end, the outcome is sometimes equal to if not worse than the actual crime itself. The world knows Marton Csokas for his villainous roles where he typically portrays Russian or Eastern European madmen and once again he does the same in this film with great flair. The film is rated R for strong and disturbing content and runs about an hour and a half so it’s most definitely NOT one for young folks. Which it late at night when it’s dark if you’re looking for something scary that will keep you awake all night. I’m going to give the film 3 out of 5 stars. It’s okay to see once but in all honesty, it’s nothing original that hasn’t been done in other films with other actors. This one is just a variation on a theme with deferent players and different aspects and details
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated The Long Earth in Books
Aug 13, 2019
Note: this review is transposted from my personal review blog, and so was originally written several years ago. I figured if I reposted it here, someone might actually read it….
I’m a huge fan of Terry Pratchett’s work, in case you hadn’t noticed. I’m slowly working my way through his Discworld novels and Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Predictions of Agnes Nutter, Witch, cowritten with Neil Gaiman, is among my favorite books of all time.* So when I discovered The Long Earth at my local library, I was ecstatic. I’d heard good things about Stephen Baxter, but never actually read any of his material. What I found was one of the best novels I have read in a very long time.
The premise here is that there are infinite worlds parallel to ours, spread out across the vast “contingency tree” of possible Earths, and in all of the Long Earth only one iteration has developed Human life–ours. Throughout our history there have always been a few with the natural ability to “step” between worlds at will, and still others who did so unintentionally and disappeared forever, but the world at large was unaware of this phenomenon until a reclusive scientist posted the blueprint for a “stepper” device on the internet and promptly disappeared from his apartment. Suddenly, the whole of the Long Earth is opened up to humanity. Suddenly, there is no shortage of land or resources. Economies are hard hit, jobs are lost, and once again humanity’s pioneer spirit is stirred to go out into the frontier and try to make their way….
Joshua Valiente is a so-called “natural stepper,” but he is probably unique among humanity. In the stress of childbirth, his mother stepped out of her world and into a parallel forest before slipping back without him. She managed to get back and recover him pretty quickly, but nevertheless young Joshua spent the first ten minutes or so of his life completely alone in his universe. As a result, he is uniquely attuned to the Long Earth. He can step between worlds without nausea, and is keenly sensitive to the number of people around, growing intensely uncomfortable the more crowded things get. Now, fifteen years after the world learned of the Long Earth, he spends most of his time exploring where no man has gone before. Lobsang, on the other hand, is a keenly intelligent AI, who may or may not be the latest reincarnation of a Tibetan motorcycle repairman. In collaboration with the shadowy Black Corporation, Lobsang has conceived a plan to test just how far the Long Earth goes. And he wants Joshua to go with him….the resulting journey is as much an exploration of what may have been as it is a geographical one, with most worlds mirroring our own, but a few display the effects of a cosmic “toss of a coin” going the other way–for example, there’s one where the Earth was completely destroyed by an asteroid strike sometime in the distant past.
Put quite plainly, this was the best thing I’ve read in a very long time. Very original, and to my (admittedly limited) understanding very faithful to the relevant science without losing quality of narrative or character. Pratchett’s humor and sardonic narrative voice shines through quite often in the interpersonal or introspective moments as well as those detailing more plot driven points–those scenes that would, in a film, become some form of montage showing that time is passing and this is what’s happening in the meantime. As I mentioned, I’ve never read Baxter before, so it’s harder to pick out his voice from their collaboration.
Infodumping has become something of a cardinal sin in the science fiction world, but sometimes you just have to throw some information at the reader so that he doesn’t get lost. I felt that The Long Earth handled that very well. We get our first glimpse at the long earth in montage mode, a series of vignettes that don’t make sense on their own, people popping in and out of worlds without understanding themselves what is going on. This is followed by the main story, twenty years after the discovery of the Long Earth, in which the bare bones are presented via a TV interview a character is half-watching while he waits. These bare bones of the conceptual basis of the book are then fleshed out in more detail as Joshua and Lobsang and introduced and get to know each other, discussing the various theories regarding the Long Earth at length in an effort to better understand it themselves. This is interspersed with flashbacks, sometimes Joshua recalling his experiences, sometimes Lobsang telling stories of other people based on his research into early encounters with the Long Earth. In this way Pratchett and Baxter manage to convey how humanity as a whole is dealing, not just Joshua and Lobsang. If I have one complaint with this it is not always clear why or how we are being told this–you don’t discover until the end of the chapter that Lobsang is telling this to Joshua instead of the authors just throwing in a tangential bit with no direct connection. And it is all connected–every revelation, every character you visit and then abandon early in the book will come back and have significance later on.
This is perhaps not the easiest read–you do have to engage it to understand it properly–but neither is it an incomprehensible enigma. As long as you pay attention you should be fine.
CONTENT: Some R-rated language, but not nearly what you could find elsewhere. Some violence, some grisly aftermath of violence. Sexual references, but nothing explicit.
*I’m frankly a little surprised I don’t have a review of that one up here, I must have reread it last just before I started doing this. I’ll have to fix that in the near future….
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/review-the-long-earth-by-terry-pratchett-stephen-baxter/
I’m a huge fan of Terry Pratchett’s work, in case you hadn’t noticed. I’m slowly working my way through his Discworld novels and Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Predictions of Agnes Nutter, Witch, cowritten with Neil Gaiman, is among my favorite books of all time.* So when I discovered The Long Earth at my local library, I was ecstatic. I’d heard good things about Stephen Baxter, but never actually read any of his material. What I found was one of the best novels I have read in a very long time.
The premise here is that there are infinite worlds parallel to ours, spread out across the vast “contingency tree” of possible Earths, and in all of the Long Earth only one iteration has developed Human life–ours. Throughout our history there have always been a few with the natural ability to “step” between worlds at will, and still others who did so unintentionally and disappeared forever, but the world at large was unaware of this phenomenon until a reclusive scientist posted the blueprint for a “stepper” device on the internet and promptly disappeared from his apartment. Suddenly, the whole of the Long Earth is opened up to humanity. Suddenly, there is no shortage of land or resources. Economies are hard hit, jobs are lost, and once again humanity’s pioneer spirit is stirred to go out into the frontier and try to make their way….
Joshua Valiente is a so-called “natural stepper,” but he is probably unique among humanity. In the stress of childbirth, his mother stepped out of her world and into a parallel forest before slipping back without him. She managed to get back and recover him pretty quickly, but nevertheless young Joshua spent the first ten minutes or so of his life completely alone in his universe. As a result, he is uniquely attuned to the Long Earth. He can step between worlds without nausea, and is keenly sensitive to the number of people around, growing intensely uncomfortable the more crowded things get. Now, fifteen years after the world learned of the Long Earth, he spends most of his time exploring where no man has gone before. Lobsang, on the other hand, is a keenly intelligent AI, who may or may not be the latest reincarnation of a Tibetan motorcycle repairman. In collaboration with the shadowy Black Corporation, Lobsang has conceived a plan to test just how far the Long Earth goes. And he wants Joshua to go with him….the resulting journey is as much an exploration of what may have been as it is a geographical one, with most worlds mirroring our own, but a few display the effects of a cosmic “toss of a coin” going the other way–for example, there’s one where the Earth was completely destroyed by an asteroid strike sometime in the distant past.
Put quite plainly, this was the best thing I’ve read in a very long time. Very original, and to my (admittedly limited) understanding very faithful to the relevant science without losing quality of narrative or character. Pratchett’s humor and sardonic narrative voice shines through quite often in the interpersonal or introspective moments as well as those detailing more plot driven points–those scenes that would, in a film, become some form of montage showing that time is passing and this is what’s happening in the meantime. As I mentioned, I’ve never read Baxter before, so it’s harder to pick out his voice from their collaboration.
Infodumping has become something of a cardinal sin in the science fiction world, but sometimes you just have to throw some information at the reader so that he doesn’t get lost. I felt that The Long Earth handled that very well. We get our first glimpse at the long earth in montage mode, a series of vignettes that don’t make sense on their own, people popping in and out of worlds without understanding themselves what is going on. This is followed by the main story, twenty years after the discovery of the Long Earth, in which the bare bones are presented via a TV interview a character is half-watching while he waits. These bare bones of the conceptual basis of the book are then fleshed out in more detail as Joshua and Lobsang and introduced and get to know each other, discussing the various theories regarding the Long Earth at length in an effort to better understand it themselves. This is interspersed with flashbacks, sometimes Joshua recalling his experiences, sometimes Lobsang telling stories of other people based on his research into early encounters with the Long Earth. In this way Pratchett and Baxter manage to convey how humanity as a whole is dealing, not just Joshua and Lobsang. If I have one complaint with this it is not always clear why or how we are being told this–you don’t discover until the end of the chapter that Lobsang is telling this to Joshua instead of the authors just throwing in a tangential bit with no direct connection. And it is all connected–every revelation, every character you visit and then abandon early in the book will come back and have significance later on.
This is perhaps not the easiest read–you do have to engage it to understand it properly–but neither is it an incomprehensible enigma. As long as you pay attention you should be fine.
CONTENT: Some R-rated language, but not nearly what you could find elsewhere. Some violence, some grisly aftermath of violence. Sexual references, but nothing explicit.
*I’m frankly a little surprised I don’t have a review of that one up here, I must have reread it last just before I started doing this. I’ll have to fix that in the near future….
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/review-the-long-earth-by-terry-pratchett-stephen-baxter/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Girl Last Seen in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Lainey was ten when she was taken. She spent three horrible years in her kidnapper's basement, enduring horrible things. Lainey is supposed to be "lucky," since she escaped, but it's hard for her to see it that way sometimes. Her entire life has been formed by that awful period in her life. And now, another girl has gone missing. Olivia Shaw, who looks exactly like Lainey did thirteen years ago. Lainey's kidnapper was never found: the police say because she could never give strong enough evidence to identify him. So Lainey has spent these years afraid, living in a haze of pills and booze, and waiting for something bad to happen. Well, something bad has happened. How exactly is Lainey involved, and is she ever going to be safe again?
I definitely have some mixed feelings about this one. <i>It certainly grabs you from the beginning and has some moments that make you go "what?!"</i> Parts of the story are very unique--I enjoyed the plot of two young women/girls aligned by a potential kidnapper--but the story was marred somewhat by the focus on Lainey's drinking and drugs. She's presented as an unreliable narrator, which I understand, and as a flawed heroine. Some of the scenes with her nearly make you cringe: you feel a mix of such sympathy and frustration, because she's such a stressful protagonist. The trend toward these frustrating, unreliable narrators lately has grown a bit old for me.
My other issue was Lainey's strange dynamic with the detective investigating Olivia's disappearance, Sean: the same detective, coincidentally, who found Lainey thirteen years ago as she stumbled helplessly along the road after escaping her horrible fate in the basement. Their dynamic, frankly, is just odd, and I found it almost distracting from the main story. Romance? Just a side story? Is he involved? It was less a bit of intrigue though and, as I mentioned, a distraction. And honestly, a little confusing. After a while, I started to get a little bored with Lainey's helplessness, her interactions with Sean, and the overall lack of things moving forward.
That changed about 3/4 in, when things picked up and became interesting again. There are definitely some fascinating moments in the book, and I did find it engaging overall, despite some stumbles along the way. This is a first novel and I see room from improvement, for sure. I'm going for a 3-star rating -- this is based on a combination of 2.5 stars for some stilted/cheesy writing combined with 3.5 stars for some exciting plot twists, including one near the end that pretty much made it all worth it. I would certainly be intrigued to read Laurin's next book. Don't let my review scare you from this one: I read a lot of thrillers, so I get bit jaded reading some similar plot devices. There's still plenty of pieces to like here.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!); it is available everywhere as of 07/20/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
I definitely have some mixed feelings about this one. <i>It certainly grabs you from the beginning and has some moments that make you go "what?!"</i> Parts of the story are very unique--I enjoyed the plot of two young women/girls aligned by a potential kidnapper--but the story was marred somewhat by the focus on Lainey's drinking and drugs. She's presented as an unreliable narrator, which I understand, and as a flawed heroine. Some of the scenes with her nearly make you cringe: you feel a mix of such sympathy and frustration, because she's such a stressful protagonist. The trend toward these frustrating, unreliable narrators lately has grown a bit old for me.
My other issue was Lainey's strange dynamic with the detective investigating Olivia's disappearance, Sean: the same detective, coincidentally, who found Lainey thirteen years ago as she stumbled helplessly along the road after escaping her horrible fate in the basement. Their dynamic, frankly, is just odd, and I found it almost distracting from the main story. Romance? Just a side story? Is he involved? It was less a bit of intrigue though and, as I mentioned, a distraction. And honestly, a little confusing. After a while, I started to get a little bored with Lainey's helplessness, her interactions with Sean, and the overall lack of things moving forward.
That changed about 3/4 in, when things picked up and became interesting again. There are definitely some fascinating moments in the book, and I did find it engaging overall, despite some stumbles along the way. This is a first novel and I see room from improvement, for sure. I'm going for a 3-star rating -- this is based on a combination of 2.5 stars for some stilted/cheesy writing combined with 3.5 stars for some exciting plot twists, including one near the end that pretty much made it all worth it. I would certainly be intrigued to read Laurin's next book. Don't let my review scare you from this one: I read a lot of thrillers, so I get bit jaded reading some similar plot devices. There's still plenty of pieces to like here.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!); it is available everywhere as of 07/20/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the dark of night, a young man’s life is about to be forever changed. Young Bruce Wayne, son of wealthy industrialist Dr. Thomas Wayne (Linus Roache), is about to be orphaned in a random act of street violence.
The act will forever scar the younger Wayne, and will install and fuel a dark fire to stop crime and corruption wherever they may be. Fast forward years later and Bruce (Christian Bale), is interned in and Asian prison as a result of his desire to stop crime and an unfortunate series of events that made him flee Gotham City to find himself. Hope arrives one day in the form of a visitor named Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), who arranges not only to free Bruce, but to train him for his destiny.
High atop a rocky, snow-covered peak, Bruce undergoes rigorous physical and mental training to hone his body and mind into the ultimate tool to combat crime. As time passes, Bruce eventually is ready to go out into the world. That is until an unexpected situation arises that forces him to decide which path he wishes to select.
The aftermath of this decision has Bruce returning home to Gotham City, where he is again under the care of the trusted family servant Alfred (Michael Caine), who informs him that crime and corruption is rampant in Gotham because the crime leader Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson), has many members of the police force and judicial system under his influence.
While touring his father’s company, Bruce meets Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), who makes all manners of high-end experimental military weaponry and armor available to Bruce. Inspired, Bruce begins to craft his alter ego Batman, and takes to the nights to disrupt Falcone and the criminal activities in Gotham.
Unknown to Bruce/Batman, an evil villain known as the Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy), is plotting to destroy Gotham, and with Batman being wanted by the police as a vigilante his attempts to cleanse the city are hindered as Bruce/Batman must fight a war on different fronts.
For most films this would be more than enough plot to carry a summer action film, but for Batman Begins, it is only the setup as the depth of the story is surpassed only by the depth of the intensity and emotion of the film as this is not Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher’s campy takes on the tale of the Dark Knight.
Director Christopher Nolan takes the gloves off and shows that his triumphant work in “Memento” was not a fluke. He has crafted a complex, dark, and emotional film that is more of a drama than a comic book caper. Bale does a masterful job portraying the angst and anger of his character without ever being hammy or over the top. He portrays Wayne as a very normal, yet disturbed soul, who clearly has a method to his madness and is not a shallow once dimensional character. When Bruce is not out fighting crime, he is not above cracking jokes, squiring the ladies about town, and spending time with long time friend (and the one who got away) Rachael Dawes (Katie Holmes).
The film takes many twists and never gets sappy as far too many comic based films do. In fact, the intensity of the film keeps going up until the town literally explodes into frenzy of violence and chaos. Parents should note that this Batman is a very intense film filled with dark images and as such may be too intense for younger viewers as this is a film that is aimed towards a more mature audience.
As I sat through the films nearly two and a half hour running time, I was captivated as the film holds your attention throughout, and is filled with great performances and action. The chase scene with the new Batmobile is one of the best car chase sequences in recent memory and the action scenes move with a crisp and steady pacing. Bale, as I mentioned, does great work, but so do Neeson, Caine and Gary Oldman in a supporting role as Police Officer Gordon. They take supporting characters and infuse them with a touch of humanity that enables them to come across as real people rather than the thin constructs that are far too often passed on as characters in films of this type.
The only real quibble I had with the film, and it is very minor, would be that Holmes was not given a chance to show more to her character other than the duality of the damsel in distress and the passionate Assistant D.A. Her scenes with Bale seem to lack the spark and chemistry of someone who is supposed to have been a close friend of Bruce since they were children.
That being said, the mature nature and gripping and deep storyline, as well as the standout performances and action, make this film a true classic and rivals “Spider-Man” as the best and most faithful adaptation of a comic book.
The act will forever scar the younger Wayne, and will install and fuel a dark fire to stop crime and corruption wherever they may be. Fast forward years later and Bruce (Christian Bale), is interned in and Asian prison as a result of his desire to stop crime and an unfortunate series of events that made him flee Gotham City to find himself. Hope arrives one day in the form of a visitor named Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), who arranges not only to free Bruce, but to train him for his destiny.
High atop a rocky, snow-covered peak, Bruce undergoes rigorous physical and mental training to hone his body and mind into the ultimate tool to combat crime. As time passes, Bruce eventually is ready to go out into the world. That is until an unexpected situation arises that forces him to decide which path he wishes to select.
The aftermath of this decision has Bruce returning home to Gotham City, where he is again under the care of the trusted family servant Alfred (Michael Caine), who informs him that crime and corruption is rampant in Gotham because the crime leader Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson), has many members of the police force and judicial system under his influence.
While touring his father’s company, Bruce meets Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), who makes all manners of high-end experimental military weaponry and armor available to Bruce. Inspired, Bruce begins to craft his alter ego Batman, and takes to the nights to disrupt Falcone and the criminal activities in Gotham.
Unknown to Bruce/Batman, an evil villain known as the Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy), is plotting to destroy Gotham, and with Batman being wanted by the police as a vigilante his attempts to cleanse the city are hindered as Bruce/Batman must fight a war on different fronts.
For most films this would be more than enough plot to carry a summer action film, but for Batman Begins, it is only the setup as the depth of the story is surpassed only by the depth of the intensity and emotion of the film as this is not Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher’s campy takes on the tale of the Dark Knight.
Director Christopher Nolan takes the gloves off and shows that his triumphant work in “Memento” was not a fluke. He has crafted a complex, dark, and emotional film that is more of a drama than a comic book caper. Bale does a masterful job portraying the angst and anger of his character without ever being hammy or over the top. He portrays Wayne as a very normal, yet disturbed soul, who clearly has a method to his madness and is not a shallow once dimensional character. When Bruce is not out fighting crime, he is not above cracking jokes, squiring the ladies about town, and spending time with long time friend (and the one who got away) Rachael Dawes (Katie Holmes).
The film takes many twists and never gets sappy as far too many comic based films do. In fact, the intensity of the film keeps going up until the town literally explodes into frenzy of violence and chaos. Parents should note that this Batman is a very intense film filled with dark images and as such may be too intense for younger viewers as this is a film that is aimed towards a more mature audience.
As I sat through the films nearly two and a half hour running time, I was captivated as the film holds your attention throughout, and is filled with great performances and action. The chase scene with the new Batmobile is one of the best car chase sequences in recent memory and the action scenes move with a crisp and steady pacing. Bale, as I mentioned, does great work, but so do Neeson, Caine and Gary Oldman in a supporting role as Police Officer Gordon. They take supporting characters and infuse them with a touch of humanity that enables them to come across as real people rather than the thin constructs that are far too often passed on as characters in films of this type.
The only real quibble I had with the film, and it is very minor, would be that Holmes was not given a chance to show more to her character other than the duality of the damsel in distress and the passionate Assistant D.A. Her scenes with Bale seem to lack the spark and chemistry of someone who is supposed to have been a close friend of Bruce since they were children.
That being said, the mature nature and gripping and deep storyline, as well as the standout performances and action, make this film a true classic and rivals “Spider-Man” as the best and most faithful adaptation of a comic book.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 300 (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 300 starts by telling us about Leonidas and how he was put through his training as a child before becoming King Leonidas (Butler). When a Persian messenger comes to Sparta with a message from King Xerxes (Santoro) about an impending war Leonidas refuses to back down. Leonidas draws up a battle plan to go against the Persian’s against that out numbers them drastically. The oracles warn Leonidas about going into the battle but Leonidas refuses to back down.
Leonidas selects 300 warriors who have sons to carry on their names to go and fight leaving Sparta behind. One the way to the battle Leonidas and his men learn what the Persians are capable off as they prepare for the battle. We follow King Leonidas and his 300 as they plough through the Persian army defying all of the odds, while another battle for power rages on back at Sparta.
300 shows how determined one group of people were to protect their own land, sure we have comic book style which helps the film enter the fantasy side. It doesn’t have the most original screen story but this is clearly made for the action. We do see how the warriors of Sparta would have been the better in battle even if the actual battle turned into something very fantasy based. Just remember you won’t need to be thinking too much through this film, just relax and enjoy. (7/10)
Actor Review
Gerard Butler: King Leonidas fearless warrior who leads his army of 300 into battle against the Persians against all odds. He goes against all the gods and wishes of their oracle to battle for his people. Gerard gives a good performance showing how he was going to be a lead actor. (8/10)
leonidas
Lena Headey: Queen Gorgo who is left to rule Sparta while the King goes into battle. She has to deal with Theron who stays back might not be as loyal as first thought. Lena gives a good performance and shows how she was always going to be playing a Queen. (7/10)
lena
Dominic West: Theron Spartan who stays behind and tries to use his power in the city to gain power over the people while Leonidas is battling for their freedom. Dominic gives a solid performance as the scheming villain. (6/10)
dom
David Wenham: Dilios warrior who is also the story telling, he provides narration for the story and fills us in on Leonidas’ past. David gives a good performance as the story teller but also warrior who fights for Sparta. (6/10)
david
Michael Fassbender: Stelios one of the fearless warriors who has never faced a real challenge and hopes to find one in this battle. Michael gives a good performance as the greatest warrior of the army in what was his debut role. (7/10)
stelios
Support Cast: 300 supporting cast is filled with warriors on both sides of the fight, they all have their moments in the battle.
Director Review: Zack Snyder – Zack showed why he is such a popular director with his newer style of directing which is both unique and entertaining. (8/10)
Action: 300 has plenty of fights but what did you expect from this kind of war film. (9/10)
Fantasy: 300 uses fantasy for its battles showing how different types of warriors could be looked and the legend created by fear. (8/10)
War: 300 shows of the great battles between the Persians and the Spartans. (10/10)
Settings: 300 creates the settings to look very authentic looking scenery for the battle scenes. (9/10)
Special Effects: 300 uses great effects for the fights and to create the different style of fighters. (9/10)
Suggestion: 300 is one for the action fans to enjoy, it has plenty of fighting but not much in the way of thinking needed. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Stelios Now.
Worst Part: Lots of shouting from Leonidas.
Action Scene Of The Film: The first battle.
Kill Of The Film: Monster creature man vs Leonidas.
Favourite Quote: King Leonidas ‘This is Sparta!’
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has a sequel.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $456 Million
Budget: $65 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 57 Minutes
Tagline: Spartans, prepare for glory!
Overall: THIS IS ‘JUST’ GOOD!
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/16/300-2006/
Leonidas selects 300 warriors who have sons to carry on their names to go and fight leaving Sparta behind. One the way to the battle Leonidas and his men learn what the Persians are capable off as they prepare for the battle. We follow King Leonidas and his 300 as they plough through the Persian army defying all of the odds, while another battle for power rages on back at Sparta.
300 shows how determined one group of people were to protect their own land, sure we have comic book style which helps the film enter the fantasy side. It doesn’t have the most original screen story but this is clearly made for the action. We do see how the warriors of Sparta would have been the better in battle even if the actual battle turned into something very fantasy based. Just remember you won’t need to be thinking too much through this film, just relax and enjoy. (7/10)
Actor Review
Gerard Butler: King Leonidas fearless warrior who leads his army of 300 into battle against the Persians against all odds. He goes against all the gods and wishes of their oracle to battle for his people. Gerard gives a good performance showing how he was going to be a lead actor. (8/10)
leonidas
Lena Headey: Queen Gorgo who is left to rule Sparta while the King goes into battle. She has to deal with Theron who stays back might not be as loyal as first thought. Lena gives a good performance and shows how she was always going to be playing a Queen. (7/10)
lena
Dominic West: Theron Spartan who stays behind and tries to use his power in the city to gain power over the people while Leonidas is battling for their freedom. Dominic gives a solid performance as the scheming villain. (6/10)
dom
David Wenham: Dilios warrior who is also the story telling, he provides narration for the story and fills us in on Leonidas’ past. David gives a good performance as the story teller but also warrior who fights for Sparta. (6/10)
david
Michael Fassbender: Stelios one of the fearless warriors who has never faced a real challenge and hopes to find one in this battle. Michael gives a good performance as the greatest warrior of the army in what was his debut role. (7/10)
stelios
Support Cast: 300 supporting cast is filled with warriors on both sides of the fight, they all have their moments in the battle.
Director Review: Zack Snyder – Zack showed why he is such a popular director with his newer style of directing which is both unique and entertaining. (8/10)
Action: 300 has plenty of fights but what did you expect from this kind of war film. (9/10)
Fantasy: 300 uses fantasy for its battles showing how different types of warriors could be looked and the legend created by fear. (8/10)
War: 300 shows of the great battles between the Persians and the Spartans. (10/10)
Settings: 300 creates the settings to look very authentic looking scenery for the battle scenes. (9/10)
Special Effects: 300 uses great effects for the fights and to create the different style of fighters. (9/10)
Suggestion: 300 is one for the action fans to enjoy, it has plenty of fighting but not much in the way of thinking needed. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Stelios Now.
Worst Part: Lots of shouting from Leonidas.
Action Scene Of The Film: The first battle.
Kill Of The Film: Monster creature man vs Leonidas.
Favourite Quote: King Leonidas ‘This is Sparta!’
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Has a sequel.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $456 Million
Budget: $65 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 57 Minutes
Tagline: Spartans, prepare for glory!
Overall: THIS IS ‘JUST’ GOOD!
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/16/300-2006/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
From director Steven Spielberg who brought us “E.T.” and the producer of “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy Peter Jackson, comes the fabulous “The Adventures of Tintin”. The film is based upon the popular European comic books which were created by Belgian artist Georges Remi and tells the story of Tintin (Jamie Bell) , a young journalist and his canine Snowy who are always seeking to find a one of a kind story to write about.
One afternoon at an outdoor market the two come across a small replica of the three-masted Unicorn sailing ship being sold at a very good price. Tintin then starts to be pressured into selling his replica to a sketchy man Ivan Sakharine (Daniel Craig) who tries very hard to purchase the ship by offering him double than what was originally paid. Without luck, Sakharine leaves and is soon followed by another man who also attempts to purchase the ship, only this time he warns Tintin about what he has gotten himself into. Tintin starts to think that maybe there is a secret about this ship and he is determined to get to the bottom of it. After returning home following a scuffle between Snowy and a neighboring cat, the ship is accidentally broken and concealed in one of the masts is a cylinder that later is revealed to contain directions to hidden treasure.
After being bitten by the curiosity bug, Tintin decides to investigate at the house of Sakharine and ends up discovering a second replica that holds another clue. He becomes captured by Sackharine and imprisoned on a ship headed to find the third and final Unicorn replica. Tintin is imprisoned with the Captain of the ship, Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis). Who learn that they must escape and collect all three of the clues to assemble the directions that will lead them to the treasure.
Both are racing to get to the treasure before Sakharine as there is a history between he and the Captain which further complicates the issues at hand.
After what seemed to be a very long and drawn out opening, the film jumps right into the action with lots of adventure, pirates, comedic moments and realistic scenes. This proves that you really can‘t judge a book by the cover as I have never been a fan of stop motion film at all, in fact it has always been creepy to me.
Knowing that this movie was filmed with that technology, I was extremely hesitant in even giving it a chance but I am very glad I did. The film is very well written and executed and truly delivers. The 3D is also outstanding and makes you feel as if you are a part of the epic adventure. I recommend this film to all ages and if you have your doubts, please trust me and give it a chance. You will not be disappointed.
One afternoon at an outdoor market the two come across a small replica of the three-masted Unicorn sailing ship being sold at a very good price. Tintin then starts to be pressured into selling his replica to a sketchy man Ivan Sakharine (Daniel Craig) who tries very hard to purchase the ship by offering him double than what was originally paid. Without luck, Sakharine leaves and is soon followed by another man who also attempts to purchase the ship, only this time he warns Tintin about what he has gotten himself into. Tintin starts to think that maybe there is a secret about this ship and he is determined to get to the bottom of it. After returning home following a scuffle between Snowy and a neighboring cat, the ship is accidentally broken and concealed in one of the masts is a cylinder that later is revealed to contain directions to hidden treasure.
After being bitten by the curiosity bug, Tintin decides to investigate at the house of Sakharine and ends up discovering a second replica that holds another clue. He becomes captured by Sackharine and imprisoned on a ship headed to find the third and final Unicorn replica. Tintin is imprisoned with the Captain of the ship, Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis). Who learn that they must escape and collect all three of the clues to assemble the directions that will lead them to the treasure.
Both are racing to get to the treasure before Sakharine as there is a history between he and the Captain which further complicates the issues at hand.
After what seemed to be a very long and drawn out opening, the film jumps right into the action with lots of adventure, pirates, comedic moments and realistic scenes. This proves that you really can‘t judge a book by the cover as I have never been a fan of stop motion film at all, in fact it has always been creepy to me.
Knowing that this movie was filmed with that technology, I was extremely hesitant in even giving it a chance but I am very glad I did. The film is very well written and executed and truly delivers. The 3D is also outstanding and makes you feel as if you are a part of the epic adventure. I recommend this film to all ages and if you have your doubts, please trust me and give it a chance. You will not be disappointed.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated A Blink of the Screen: Collected Shorter Fiction in Books
Nov 8, 2019
For someone who was as prolific at writing novels as Terry Pratchett he didn't write much in the way of short stories. As he himself comments in this collection of his work this is because 'they cost blood' to write and he wondered how others such as Neil Gaiman could write so many short stories. This is all the more surprising given his grounding in journalism, something that demands producing a story withing a set number of words.
The basis for this seems to be that the nugget of an idea behind a Pratchett book was rarely simple enough to be encapsulated neatly in the short story form; his characters and ideas took time to develop and that's before the addition of the amusing footnotes and his skill at producing pastiche, parody and satire of many different things without the narrative stumbling or swerving.
This collection shows that although relatively few in number, the Pratchett short story was just as fine as could be expected. Sometimes they could be a little rushed to get to the point before the end (best seen in his tale of a gnome from the country that finds other gnomes in a department store - the story that was later rewritten fully as Truckers)
This is also a somewhat eclectic mix. There is the first story that he was paid for about the devil wanting to promote hell, which he wrote at school but it is clear that he already had the flair for writing even then. A few science fiction stories including the prescient and dark #ifdefDEBUG "world/enough" "time" about someone retreating to a virtual reality world. There is the story that formed the first ideas that would eventually become The Long Earth and of course some Diskworld shorts and related notes.
Taken together they show that over a long span of time Pratchett was coming up with great ideas. There is a little uneveness but part of this is due to his writing style being different between Diskworld and his more science fiction based stories (something that confused a lot of Diskworld readers when they read The Long Earth, but goes back even to The Dark Side of the Sun and Strata both of which are very different to Diskworld in tone.
To this end the editors have been wise to have the Diskworld stories as the second half with the 'other' stories at the beginning. This avoids the tone changing too much between stories.
This sounds like it might be for the Pratchett 'completist', like one of those greatest hits albums that comes out with just one or two rare tracks, but really this is a great collection of short stories by any measure. A couple of these are fairly well known - Troll Bridge and Theatre of Cruelty - but there is nothing gratuitous here. And of course there are plenty of laughs and subtle takes on society and humanity.
The basis for this seems to be that the nugget of an idea behind a Pratchett book was rarely simple enough to be encapsulated neatly in the short story form; his characters and ideas took time to develop and that's before the addition of the amusing footnotes and his skill at producing pastiche, parody and satire of many different things without the narrative stumbling or swerving.
This collection shows that although relatively few in number, the Pratchett short story was just as fine as could be expected. Sometimes they could be a little rushed to get to the point before the end (best seen in his tale of a gnome from the country that finds other gnomes in a department store - the story that was later rewritten fully as Truckers)
This is also a somewhat eclectic mix. There is the first story that he was paid for about the devil wanting to promote hell, which he wrote at school but it is clear that he already had the flair for writing even then. A few science fiction stories including the prescient and dark #ifdefDEBUG "world/enough" "time" about someone retreating to a virtual reality world. There is the story that formed the first ideas that would eventually become The Long Earth and of course some Diskworld shorts and related notes.
Taken together they show that over a long span of time Pratchett was coming up with great ideas. There is a little uneveness but part of this is due to his writing style being different between Diskworld and his more science fiction based stories (something that confused a lot of Diskworld readers when they read The Long Earth, but goes back even to The Dark Side of the Sun and Strata both of which are very different to Diskworld in tone.
To this end the editors have been wise to have the Diskworld stories as the second half with the 'other' stories at the beginning. This avoids the tone changing too much between stories.
This sounds like it might be for the Pratchett 'completist', like one of those greatest hits albums that comes out with just one or two rare tracks, but really this is a great collection of short stories by any measure. A couple of these are fairly well known - Troll Bridge and Theatre of Cruelty - but there is nothing gratuitous here. And of course there are plenty of laughs and subtle takes on society and humanity.