Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated King Kong (2005) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Thoughts on King Kong
Characters – Ann Darrow is a stage actress who has ben performing in an unsuccessful show for years until her theatre gets closed down, she is getting desperate to work with famous play write, only to find herself meeting a film director working with him. Ann jumps at the chance to have a paid gig, only this becomes more than she ever bargained for, when she becomes the object of King Kong affections on Skull Island. Carl Denham is a film director whose latest film isn’t impressing his investors, he decides to run before having the whole projects plug pulled, taking his crew to an unknown island and even after the danger starts, he continues to film his evolving story. Jack Driscoll is the screenwriter that is trying to get back to his stage work, only to find that Carl has tricked him into remaining on the boat, forcing him to work on the screenplay, he starts to fall in love with Ann along the way too, willing to risk his own life to save hers. Kong is the feared ruler of Skull Island, he takes Ann as a sacrifice falling in love with the human on his island, he can fight any threat, including T-Rexes. He is the icon that we know from previous films bought to life once again.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the role made famous by Fay Wray, brings her own stamp to the role, handling the small comic moments very well through the film too. Jack Black might not have been many people’s first choice for the director role, but he proves a lot of people wrong with his performance, which still remains one of his best. Adrian Brody proves to be a great choice too because he gets to poke fun at the Hollywood stereotypes.
Story – The story here follows an ambitious director who takes his crew including a desperate young actress to Skull Island, a mysterious uncharted location only to find a land filled with unseen monsters including the king of the island Kong, who becomes friends with Ann the actress. This is the remake of the one of the classic films of the 1930s, it does tell the same story, only builds on everything to new levels, because back then, nobody knew how big movies were going to be, so this time we can look back at the movie building era, showing more of the conflicts between movies and theatre. The island is also much larger in scale with plenty of creatures which add to the story. we do even have small side stories which do work to fill the films lengthy 3 hour plus run time. We do get to see just how destructive the human can be to new worlds too.
Action/Adventure – The action in the film is massive, edge of the seat and most importantly brilliant to watch, be it the fights between creatures, monsters and humans, right down to the New York showdown with Kong. The adventure does take us to a new world, where we haven’t seen the creatures before, or at least not this size. It shows the most dangerous side of the explorer’s journeys in the world.
Settings – The film does use two main settings, first New York which is re-created for the time period perfectly, the second is the island which is filled with the beauty and terror you would have come to expect from an unknown location
Special Effects – The effects are one of the biggest talking points of this film, first of all Kong looks fantastic, large amounts of the film looks brilliant, but that one chase scene will drag this down because it is such a weak point for the film.
Scene of the Movie – Kong versus the T-Rex.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The canyon chase the CGI looks awful.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the remakes that works because of the improvement in technology, it is epic in scale and manages to capture the true feeling behind what made the original such a memorable movie.
Overall: Stunning remake that lives up to the scale of the movie.
Characters – Ann Darrow is a stage actress who has ben performing in an unsuccessful show for years until her theatre gets closed down, she is getting desperate to work with famous play write, only to find herself meeting a film director working with him. Ann jumps at the chance to have a paid gig, only this becomes more than she ever bargained for, when she becomes the object of King Kong affections on Skull Island. Carl Denham is a film director whose latest film isn’t impressing his investors, he decides to run before having the whole projects plug pulled, taking his crew to an unknown island and even after the danger starts, he continues to film his evolving story. Jack Driscoll is the screenwriter that is trying to get back to his stage work, only to find that Carl has tricked him into remaining on the boat, forcing him to work on the screenplay, he starts to fall in love with Ann along the way too, willing to risk his own life to save hers. Kong is the feared ruler of Skull Island, he takes Ann as a sacrifice falling in love with the human on his island, he can fight any threat, including T-Rexes. He is the icon that we know from previous films bought to life once again.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the role made famous by Fay Wray, brings her own stamp to the role, handling the small comic moments very well through the film too. Jack Black might not have been many people’s first choice for the director role, but he proves a lot of people wrong with his performance, which still remains one of his best. Adrian Brody proves to be a great choice too because he gets to poke fun at the Hollywood stereotypes.
Story – The story here follows an ambitious director who takes his crew including a desperate young actress to Skull Island, a mysterious uncharted location only to find a land filled with unseen monsters including the king of the island Kong, who becomes friends with Ann the actress. This is the remake of the one of the classic films of the 1930s, it does tell the same story, only builds on everything to new levels, because back then, nobody knew how big movies were going to be, so this time we can look back at the movie building era, showing more of the conflicts between movies and theatre. The island is also much larger in scale with plenty of creatures which add to the story. we do even have small side stories which do work to fill the films lengthy 3 hour plus run time. We do get to see just how destructive the human can be to new worlds too.
Action/Adventure – The action in the film is massive, edge of the seat and most importantly brilliant to watch, be it the fights between creatures, monsters and humans, right down to the New York showdown with Kong. The adventure does take us to a new world, where we haven’t seen the creatures before, or at least not this size. It shows the most dangerous side of the explorer’s journeys in the world.
Settings – The film does use two main settings, first New York which is re-created for the time period perfectly, the second is the island which is filled with the beauty and terror you would have come to expect from an unknown location
Special Effects – The effects are one of the biggest talking points of this film, first of all Kong looks fantastic, large amounts of the film looks brilliant, but that one chase scene will drag this down because it is such a weak point for the film.
Scene of the Movie – Kong versus the T-Rex.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The canyon chase the CGI looks awful.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the remakes that works because of the improvement in technology, it is epic in scale and manages to capture the true feeling behind what made the original such a memorable movie.
Overall: Stunning remake that lives up to the scale of the movie.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lego Batman Movie (2017) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
All Hail the Bricks
LEGO may have just single-handedly saved the DC Universe. Yep, you heard me right; the construction toy has come to the aid of one of the comic-book heavyweights in spectacular fashion.
Of course, this is not the first time the world’s biggest toy company has released a film. 2014’s LEGO Movie catapulted the popular bricks into the minds of more people than ever before, it was an astounding success, and deserved every inch.
Now, they’re back with The LEGO Batman Movie, a film with so many side jokes and movie references, it’s impossible to spot them all the first time around.
There are some big changes brewing in the city of Gotham, but if Batman (Will Arnett) wants to save the city from the Joker’s (Zach Galifianakis) hostile takeover, he may have to drop the lone vigilante shtick, try to work with others and perhaps, learn to lighten up; if that’s humanly possible. Maybe his superhero sidekick Robin (voiced by Michael Cera) and loyal butler Alfred (played by Ralph Fiennes) can show him a thing or two?
After depressing cinema-goers with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and the studio interference that caused Suicide Squad to be a hideous mess (which is referenced in the flick marvellously), DC was in serious trouble – its universe was unravelling before it had even got going. Marvel certainly had nothing to worry about from its biggest rival, but that may have changed after this.
Everything from the voice acting to the ridiculously dry script and exceptional animation makes The LEGO Batman Movie a treat for children and adults. There are references to: get ready… Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Gremlins, The Lord of the Rings and every single Batman film to name but a few, all expertly placed within a story that betters any DC film before it.
The cast gels together perfectly. Will Arnett clearly had a ball playing the caped crusader, channelling Ben Affleck and Christian Bale flawlessly. Michael Cera gives his best performance in years and Ralph Fiennes is great as Alfred. Would you believe me if I said Mariah Carey even got in on the action? Well, she does. There are small roles for Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill and Eddie Izzard too.
Elsewhere, the animation is of course, blocky. Beautifully so in fact. It’s always exciting seeing individual locations transformed into LEGO and Gotham is no exception. It’s rendered to an exquisite standard with each and every frame stuffed to the brim with colour and detail. The music is also a highlight throughout with Lorne Balfe’s faithful score juxtaposed with some original songs and classic pop hits.
Overall, The LEGO Batman Movie was always going to be a gamble, but perhaps less of a risk considering the low quality of DC’s current crop of films. With some great animation, a genuinely funny and at times heart-warming story and a cast that works together incredibly well, it’s a cracking addition to the ever-expanding superhero genre.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/02/11/all-hail-the-bricks-the-lego-batman-movie-review/
Of course, this is not the first time the world’s biggest toy company has released a film. 2014’s LEGO Movie catapulted the popular bricks into the minds of more people than ever before, it was an astounding success, and deserved every inch.
Now, they’re back with The LEGO Batman Movie, a film with so many side jokes and movie references, it’s impossible to spot them all the first time around.
There are some big changes brewing in the city of Gotham, but if Batman (Will Arnett) wants to save the city from the Joker’s (Zach Galifianakis) hostile takeover, he may have to drop the lone vigilante shtick, try to work with others and perhaps, learn to lighten up; if that’s humanly possible. Maybe his superhero sidekick Robin (voiced by Michael Cera) and loyal butler Alfred (played by Ralph Fiennes) can show him a thing or two?
After depressing cinema-goers with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and the studio interference that caused Suicide Squad to be a hideous mess (which is referenced in the flick marvellously), DC was in serious trouble – its universe was unravelling before it had even got going. Marvel certainly had nothing to worry about from its biggest rival, but that may have changed after this.
Everything from the voice acting to the ridiculously dry script and exceptional animation makes The LEGO Batman Movie a treat for children and adults. There are references to: get ready… Jurassic Park, Harry Potter, Doctor Who, Gremlins, The Lord of the Rings and every single Batman film to name but a few, all expertly placed within a story that betters any DC film before it.
The cast gels together perfectly. Will Arnett clearly had a ball playing the caped crusader, channelling Ben Affleck and Christian Bale flawlessly. Michael Cera gives his best performance in years and Ralph Fiennes is great as Alfred. Would you believe me if I said Mariah Carey even got in on the action? Well, she does. There are small roles for Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill and Eddie Izzard too.
Elsewhere, the animation is of course, blocky. Beautifully so in fact. It’s always exciting seeing individual locations transformed into LEGO and Gotham is no exception. It’s rendered to an exquisite standard with each and every frame stuffed to the brim with colour and detail. The music is also a highlight throughout with Lorne Balfe’s faithful score juxtaposed with some original songs and classic pop hits.
Overall, The LEGO Batman Movie was always going to be a gamble, but perhaps less of a risk considering the low quality of DC’s current crop of films. With some great animation, a genuinely funny and at times heart-warming story and a cast that works together incredibly well, it’s a cracking addition to the ever-expanding superhero genre.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/02/11/all-hail-the-bricks-the-lego-batman-movie-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Written (Emaneska #1) in Books
Nov 29, 2019
Ben Galley is a fantasy author and staunch defender of independent publishing. The Written is his first book, and the first in The Emaneska trilogy.
I have to say I was expecting some fairly standard sword and sorcery tale here, a bit of magic, a few fabulous beasts slain, the usual wise grey beards and prophecies. As a first book that would have definitely been the safe option, and would still have been a good read.
Needless to say this isn't what you get. You get a slew of mythical creatures - dragons (I suspect only the Pern novels exceed the sheer number in this book), werewolves and more besides. You get heroes and villains. You get magic. You get sword fights. But all of these are put together in a way that's different from the norm. Rather than trying to subvert all the fantasy tropes it is as if Galley dropped them and they smashed and in putting them back together they aren't quite the same as they were before.
The basic story concerns the theft of a spell book which, in the wrong hands, can be used to summon a mighty and powerful evil. Farden, one of the Written (a sort of magic user that has spells tattooed onto his back) has to try to prevent this happening. I won't give any more details as there are many twists and turns as the story unfolds.
Farden is a powerful mage and a tough fighter and although he is heoric he also has personal demons that could cause his mission to fail. He is a loner with little patience for others. He doubts his own abilities and judgement. As the reader you feel you want to give him a good shaking sometimes to get him to act. This makes him a very complex character, realistic and interesting to follow. The other main characters are also fully realised with their own mannerisms and momentum.
Galley takes his time describing the world and there is a feeling of real depth and history, perhaps not on the same scale as Tolkien but the comparison is apt. Clearly Galley has spent considerable time putting this world together and is rightly proud of the results.
He takes his time with descriptions, each of the many locations vividly worded and memorable. The action scenes (of which there are a fair number) crack along at a breathless pace although possibly a little overwritten at times (allowable when there is so much to try to convey to the reader I think).
As the first of a trilogy of books this obviously leaves the story open for the sequel at the end, but it is a satisfying conclusion and there is no doubt that the first part of Farden's journey is complete but that there is much more - and probably harder - to come.
Really the only criticism I have is that occasionally - at the start and then a small part about half way through - the writing perhaps isn't up to the standard of the rest, which I think is because this is a first novel. And the standard of the rest of the writing to so high this really is a niggle.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who likes their fantasy fast and interesting. It's a long book and a good book. And even better, it's free to download so what is stopping you?
I have to say I was expecting some fairly standard sword and sorcery tale here, a bit of magic, a few fabulous beasts slain, the usual wise grey beards and prophecies. As a first book that would have definitely been the safe option, and would still have been a good read.
Needless to say this isn't what you get. You get a slew of mythical creatures - dragons (I suspect only the Pern novels exceed the sheer number in this book), werewolves and more besides. You get heroes and villains. You get magic. You get sword fights. But all of these are put together in a way that's different from the norm. Rather than trying to subvert all the fantasy tropes it is as if Galley dropped them and they smashed and in putting them back together they aren't quite the same as they were before.
The basic story concerns the theft of a spell book which, in the wrong hands, can be used to summon a mighty and powerful evil. Farden, one of the Written (a sort of magic user that has spells tattooed onto his back) has to try to prevent this happening. I won't give any more details as there are many twists and turns as the story unfolds.
Farden is a powerful mage and a tough fighter and although he is heoric he also has personal demons that could cause his mission to fail. He is a loner with little patience for others. He doubts his own abilities and judgement. As the reader you feel you want to give him a good shaking sometimes to get him to act. This makes him a very complex character, realistic and interesting to follow. The other main characters are also fully realised with their own mannerisms and momentum.
Galley takes his time describing the world and there is a feeling of real depth and history, perhaps not on the same scale as Tolkien but the comparison is apt. Clearly Galley has spent considerable time putting this world together and is rightly proud of the results.
He takes his time with descriptions, each of the many locations vividly worded and memorable. The action scenes (of which there are a fair number) crack along at a breathless pace although possibly a little overwritten at times (allowable when there is so much to try to convey to the reader I think).
As the first of a trilogy of books this obviously leaves the story open for the sequel at the end, but it is a satisfying conclusion and there is no doubt that the first part of Farden's journey is complete but that there is much more - and probably harder - to come.
Really the only criticism I have is that occasionally - at the start and then a small part about half way through - the writing perhaps isn't up to the standard of the rest, which I think is because this is a first novel. And the standard of the rest of the writing to so high this really is a niggle.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who likes their fantasy fast and interesting. It's a long book and a good book. And even better, it's free to download so what is stopping you?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
At this point I feel like I've grown u with definitive versions of Robin Hood. Kevin Costner will always be a front runner, and Disney's foxified version brings a smile to my face every time. I was also lucky to have been shown Robin Hood Men In Tights when I was younger and will always appreciate Cary Elwes' rendition. Errol Flynn will always be the high point for class in the role. There's always that one we don't talk about... Russell Crowe, I'm looking at you. We probably should consider the small screen as well, after all should we be excluding Robin from Madi Marian and Her Merry Men?
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Scar (2007) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Characters – Joan is a character we meet at two different ages and flashback between through the film, the teenage version of her gets tortured by the serial killer leaving her with the scar on her face. The adult one heads back to her hometown for the first time since to see her niece graduate. When the killings start again she becomes the prime suspect though she believes she killed the killer all those years ago. She must learn who the killer is before her niece goes through the same ordeal she does. Olympia is the niece that is living the normal teenage life graduating only to become the latest target by the killer who has already taken her friends. Bishop is the serial killer that targeted Joan and her friend all those years ago, forcing the through a torturous ordeal, has he return? He enjoys making the victims suffer as he cuts them. We do get to meet other characters who mostly become victims of the killer, each one interacts in their own way.
Performances – Angela Bettis is strong in the leading role of this film, she often took chances on horror and this is one where she can lead the film and deal with the horrors involved. Kirby Bliss Blanton is solid in her role though she doesn’t get as much to do other than be generic teenager. Ben Cotton does make for a good villain that showed just how twisted his character it. The supporting cast are all solid enough without being challenged to do anything to make them standout.
Story – The story follows a victim returning home for the first time only to face a serial killer she believed she had killed to protect her niece. The story does a good job balance the two timelines as we see how Joan is reacting to the ordeal from her first encounter to the new encounter, playing along the lines that she might not be as clean as she thought she was. We also get to deal with how people can become interested in killings over the stories about the killer over the victim. The strangest twist in the film is the fact that another bigger film seemed to use the exact same twist and motives behind the killings, I won’t mention the film because it will ruin the end of the film.
Crime/Horror – The crime side of the film follows the action of the serial killer which plays into the horror because of the torturous nature that they follow through the film, the wounds feel real, look real and brutal with just how they are made to look.
Settings – The film takes place in a small town, which has a reputation, we see the normal locations, but it is in the shadows where we see the killer conduct their actions.
Special Effects – The effects come from the graphic body horror we are put through by the killer, the wounds being enough to make the blood appear over causing fatal wounds.
Scene of the Movie – The killer’s identity.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The killer’s motivation.
Final Thoughts – When it comes to late night horrors sometimes we can just enjoy the events for what they are, this is one of the perfect examples of this giving us horror when we need it and a simple horror to watch.
Overall: Midnight horror treat.
Performances – Angela Bettis is strong in the leading role of this film, she often took chances on horror and this is one where she can lead the film and deal with the horrors involved. Kirby Bliss Blanton is solid in her role though she doesn’t get as much to do other than be generic teenager. Ben Cotton does make for a good villain that showed just how twisted his character it. The supporting cast are all solid enough without being challenged to do anything to make them standout.
Story – The story follows a victim returning home for the first time only to face a serial killer she believed she had killed to protect her niece. The story does a good job balance the two timelines as we see how Joan is reacting to the ordeal from her first encounter to the new encounter, playing along the lines that she might not be as clean as she thought she was. We also get to deal with how people can become interested in killings over the stories about the killer over the victim. The strangest twist in the film is the fact that another bigger film seemed to use the exact same twist and motives behind the killings, I won’t mention the film because it will ruin the end of the film.
Crime/Horror – The crime side of the film follows the action of the serial killer which plays into the horror because of the torturous nature that they follow through the film, the wounds feel real, look real and brutal with just how they are made to look.
Settings – The film takes place in a small town, which has a reputation, we see the normal locations, but it is in the shadows where we see the killer conduct their actions.
Special Effects – The effects come from the graphic body horror we are put through by the killer, the wounds being enough to make the blood appear over causing fatal wounds.
Scene of the Movie – The killer’s identity.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The killer’s motivation.
Final Thoughts – When it comes to late night horrors sometimes we can just enjoy the events for what they are, this is one of the perfect examples of this giving us horror when we need it and a simple horror to watch.
Overall: Midnight horror treat.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated An American Pickle (2020) in Movies
Aug 22, 2020
I'm not the biggest fan of Seth Rogen, his type of humour doesn't always gel with mine, but I saw a trailer that looked amusing so I figured it was something a little different to try.
Herschel and his wife Sarah get to America with hope and the dream of making the Greenbaum family a successful one. Herschel's plan is scuppered when he falls into a pickle vat at his job and isn't discovered for 100 years. The future is a very different place. Reunited with his great grandson Ben he starts to adjust to the new crazy way of life... with just a few bumps along the way.
So... I didn't hate it. It's a comedy that didn't raise many laughs, in me or the others in the screening. There were things that made me smile but I never broke the silence. It felt like a script problem rather than the acting, Rogen can deliver comedy well even if I don't find it funny.
Rogen's performances throughout were good. I couldn't help but watch for the continuity with his two roles, and apart from the frustrating shots needed to hide doubles it was all well done. He even got me with a bit of emotion which caught me by surprise... but that was something else that worked against the comedy, it felt much more like drama.
I enjoyed the different styles of the old country and modern America, the sets and costumes were well thought out and I really enjoyed the hipster joke about Herschel's clothes. But, I had an issue with the filming choice to separate the two eras. You may know from previous rants that I dislike odd aspect ratios, and ugh, why?! The film starts with "old timey" hand drawn style titles and it's shot in 1:33 (according to IMDb), when we hit modern times it reverts to a full screen size. I don't feel like there would have been anything to recover this for me but it would have been... more satisfying?... if they'd stuck to a theme. Go all out, small ratio, muted colours, grainy footage. They use the old photos a few times later in the film and some proper tie in might have been good. There's also a lot of technology based content to emphasise the differences, and that's perfectly logical but there was a lot of it. News footage popped up everywhere, TVs, computers, devices or the characters actually in it. It felt a little odd and a tad excessive.
Early on I noticed a lot of music, when Herschel meets the real world after being pickled I got a heavy Avengers/Cap vibe which almost instantly changed to something very weird and out of place. Almost as suddenly I stopped noticing the music at all, if it was still there it blended a lot better with the scenes... I'll just have to shrug my shoulders on that one.
Everything about An American Pickle is up and down, an odd but interesting story idea, a lack of laughs for a comedy, some great use of atmosphere to illustrate Ben's mood... but that all comes together (or rather it doesn't) into something that left me feeling a little pickled myself.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-american-pickle-movie-review.html
Herschel and his wife Sarah get to America with hope and the dream of making the Greenbaum family a successful one. Herschel's plan is scuppered when he falls into a pickle vat at his job and isn't discovered for 100 years. The future is a very different place. Reunited with his great grandson Ben he starts to adjust to the new crazy way of life... with just a few bumps along the way.
So... I didn't hate it. It's a comedy that didn't raise many laughs, in me or the others in the screening. There were things that made me smile but I never broke the silence. It felt like a script problem rather than the acting, Rogen can deliver comedy well even if I don't find it funny.
Rogen's performances throughout were good. I couldn't help but watch for the continuity with his two roles, and apart from the frustrating shots needed to hide doubles it was all well done. He even got me with a bit of emotion which caught me by surprise... but that was something else that worked against the comedy, it felt much more like drama.
I enjoyed the different styles of the old country and modern America, the sets and costumes were well thought out and I really enjoyed the hipster joke about Herschel's clothes. But, I had an issue with the filming choice to separate the two eras. You may know from previous rants that I dislike odd aspect ratios, and ugh, why?! The film starts with "old timey" hand drawn style titles and it's shot in 1:33 (according to IMDb), when we hit modern times it reverts to a full screen size. I don't feel like there would have been anything to recover this for me but it would have been... more satisfying?... if they'd stuck to a theme. Go all out, small ratio, muted colours, grainy footage. They use the old photos a few times later in the film and some proper tie in might have been good. There's also a lot of technology based content to emphasise the differences, and that's perfectly logical but there was a lot of it. News footage popped up everywhere, TVs, computers, devices or the characters actually in it. It felt a little odd and a tad excessive.
Early on I noticed a lot of music, when Herschel meets the real world after being pickled I got a heavy Avengers/Cap vibe which almost instantly changed to something very weird and out of place. Almost as suddenly I stopped noticing the music at all, if it was still there it blended a lot better with the scenes... I'll just have to shrug my shoulders on that one.
Everything about An American Pickle is up and down, an odd but interesting story idea, a lack of laughs for a comedy, some great use of atmosphere to illustrate Ben's mood... but that all comes together (or rather it doesn't) into something that left me feeling a little pickled myself.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-american-pickle-movie-review.html
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Pandorum (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
A man wakes up in a sleeping chamber of some kind aboard a ship trudging its way through outer space. He has no recollection of who he is, what his mission is, or how long he's been on this vessel. After being awake for an hour, his memory begins to come back to him. He knows his name is Bower and he has a wife who may be on the ship somewhere. That's about the time the power surges begin and Lieutenant Payton wakes up. After realizing that they can't do much without having full power, Bower ventures off on his own to see if he can figure out what's causing these power surges and if anymore of the crew is awake. Bower doesn't get too far before he figures out two things: the first being that he only has about forty five minutes until the reactor goes into emergency shut down unless he can reach it in time from the other side of the ship. The second is that there's something else on board and whatever it is isn't human.
I had wanted to see this film ever since it first hit theaters since it had been a few years since the last sci-fi horror film I really enjoyed and I was really craving one. I missed it during its initial run though since it didn't perform so well at the box office (only a little over $10 million to date) and the response from moviegoers seemed a bit mixed (7.2 on IMDb, 27% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). I had my doubts about the film since I knew Paul W.S. Anderson was involved and I've been rather disappointed with the majority of his films. Even though he was only a producer this time around, I knew his influence would still be on the project and it certainly was. So how did Pandorum stack up against the rest of Anderson's filmography? Probably about the same, but I enjoyed it overall.
The film starts off with an interesting premise, but the storyline seems to get more and more tangled up in itself as its twists and turns unravel. The viewer is left slightly disoriented by the time it's all said and done. There's at least two twists in there and several complicated conversations explaining what's actually going on. The other big problem for me was the fight scenes. Even though Christian Alvart is in the director's chair this time around, it seems as though some of Anderson's filming techniques left an impression on him as I remember having the same problem during the Resident Evil films (mainly Apocalypse). It's just hard to make out what's going on at times. You know someone has been stabbed or punched or kicked, but the camera zipping around so much sometimes makes it hard to see who is doing what.
The main reason to watch Pandorum is Ben Foster. He's just more and more impressive as an actor with every film he gets under his belt. I grew up watching him as Tucker James on Flash Forward and basically never forgot about him. After appearing in The Punisher, Hostage, and X-Men: The Last Stand, his most impressive role was in 3:10 To Yuma where he almost managed to steal the show from Russel Crowe and Christian Bale. It just seems like the more screen time Foster gets, the more time he has to portray how talented he really is. There are hints of Anderson's work on other films in Pandorum and although I'm not a big fan of his work, it was subtle and enjoyable overall. Event Horizon is the most obvious one, but there was a scene in the film where Bower and a few other people are trying to get to the reactor and they travel through a room that resembled the room in the first Resident Evil film with the lasers that wind up chopping most of them into bits. It was kind of interesting since Anderson's impression was definitely left on the film, but it felt like there was still enough material there for Christian Alvart to do his own thing as director. Speaking of Alvart, I was pleased that his two leads from his film Antibodies (André Hennicke and Wotan Wilke Möhring) had cameos in the film. Even Norman Reedus, who had a small role in Antibodies, managed to have a scene in Pandorum.
While Pandorum's storyline does seem to have about three turns too many and it's a bit difficult to make out what's going on when the action gets intense, it still managed to meet my expectations and be exactly what I was looking for with this type of film. Ben Foster definitely steals the show (Dennis Quaid is pretty good, as well) and the creatures in the film look similar to the ones from The Descent, which makes me think of this film as the offspring of Event Horizon and The Descent. If you're a fan of Event Horizon, Resident Evil, Aliens, or Sunshine, then this may be worth checking out. Considering its reputation, however, it'll probably have to be filed with the rest of my guilty pleasures.
I had wanted to see this film ever since it first hit theaters since it had been a few years since the last sci-fi horror film I really enjoyed and I was really craving one. I missed it during its initial run though since it didn't perform so well at the box office (only a little over $10 million to date) and the response from moviegoers seemed a bit mixed (7.2 on IMDb, 27% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). I had my doubts about the film since I knew Paul W.S. Anderson was involved and I've been rather disappointed with the majority of his films. Even though he was only a producer this time around, I knew his influence would still be on the project and it certainly was. So how did Pandorum stack up against the rest of Anderson's filmography? Probably about the same, but I enjoyed it overall.
The film starts off with an interesting premise, but the storyline seems to get more and more tangled up in itself as its twists and turns unravel. The viewer is left slightly disoriented by the time it's all said and done. There's at least two twists in there and several complicated conversations explaining what's actually going on. The other big problem for me was the fight scenes. Even though Christian Alvart is in the director's chair this time around, it seems as though some of Anderson's filming techniques left an impression on him as I remember having the same problem during the Resident Evil films (mainly Apocalypse). It's just hard to make out what's going on at times. You know someone has been stabbed or punched or kicked, but the camera zipping around so much sometimes makes it hard to see who is doing what.
The main reason to watch Pandorum is Ben Foster. He's just more and more impressive as an actor with every film he gets under his belt. I grew up watching him as Tucker James on Flash Forward and basically never forgot about him. After appearing in The Punisher, Hostage, and X-Men: The Last Stand, his most impressive role was in 3:10 To Yuma where he almost managed to steal the show from Russel Crowe and Christian Bale. It just seems like the more screen time Foster gets, the more time he has to portray how talented he really is. There are hints of Anderson's work on other films in Pandorum and although I'm not a big fan of his work, it was subtle and enjoyable overall. Event Horizon is the most obvious one, but there was a scene in the film where Bower and a few other people are trying to get to the reactor and they travel through a room that resembled the room in the first Resident Evil film with the lasers that wind up chopping most of them into bits. It was kind of interesting since Anderson's impression was definitely left on the film, but it felt like there was still enough material there for Christian Alvart to do his own thing as director. Speaking of Alvart, I was pleased that his two leads from his film Antibodies (André Hennicke and Wotan Wilke Möhring) had cameos in the film. Even Norman Reedus, who had a small role in Antibodies, managed to have a scene in Pandorum.
While Pandorum's storyline does seem to have about three turns too many and it's a bit difficult to make out what's going on when the action gets intense, it still managed to meet my expectations and be exactly what I was looking for with this type of film. Ben Foster definitely steals the show (Dennis Quaid is pretty good, as well) and the creatures in the film look similar to the ones from The Descent, which makes me think of this film as the offspring of Event Horizon and The Descent. If you're a fan of Event Horizon, Resident Evil, Aliens, or Sunshine, then this may be worth checking out. Considering its reputation, however, it'll probably have to be filed with the rest of my guilty pleasures.
IT… didn’t really float my boat.
IT is based on the Stephen King novel, and tells the disturbing recurring events that happen within the town of Derry in Maine. Kids keep disappearing and sightings of a spooky clown, other visitations and red balloons occur. A group of bullied high school kids – one directly impacted by the disappearances – work to get to the bottom of the supernatural goings on. (Fortunately they don’t have a dog called Scooby).
I had in mind that with the disturbing and dangerous “clowning around” that happened in the summer of 2016 that this film had been shot a while ago and the release delayed until now for fear of adding ‘clown-flavoured fuel’ to the fire. But it appears that filming only completed in September of last year, so that appears not to be the case.
The film starts memorably and brutally with the “drain scene” from the trailer. And very effective it is too. “Great!” you think… this is a spookfest that has legs! Unfortunately, for me at least, it all went downhill from there. The film really doesn’t seem to know WHAT it’s trying to be. There are elements of “Stand By Me”; elements of “Alien”; elements of “The Conjuring”, all thrown into a cinematic blender and pulsed well.
The most endearing aspects of the movie are the interactions of the small-town kids, with this aspect of the film bearing the closest comparison with J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. This is carried by the great performances of the young actors involved, with Jaeden Lieberher (so memorable in “Midnight Special”) as Bill; Jeremy Ray Taylor (“Ant Man”) as Ben (‘the chubby one’); and Finn Wolfhard, in his big-screen premiere and sporting an absurd set of glasses, as the wise-cracking Ritchie.
Standout for my though was the then 14-year old Sophia Lillis as Beverly (the nearest equivalent to the Elle Fanning role in “Super 8”). This young lady has SUCH screen presence, reminiscent of Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films. I think she is a name to watch!
While commenting on the acting I do need to acknowledge Bill Skarsgård (“Atomic Blonde” and son of Stellan Skarsgård) who is creepily effective as Pennywise the clown.
Having a film that just centred on the pubescent interplay between the youngsters and their battles against the near-psychopathic school bully Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton, “Captain Fantastic”) would have kept me well-entertained for two hours. However, in the same way that the hugely over-inflated Sci-Fi ending of “Super 8” rather detracted from that film, so the clown-related story popping up all the time just irritated me to distraction. (“WILL YOU JUST FECK OFF AND LEAVE US TO FIND OUT WHO BEVERLY GETS OFF WITH???!!”)
While the film has a number of good jump-scares, a lot of them – especially those with excessive use of CGI – just don’t really work. There are normally no “outcomes” from the scares. It’s all a bit like a ghost train where the carriage rounds a corner, something jumps out, and then the carriage moves on round the corner again! What makes a great horror film is where the “science” of the horror is well thought through. “Alien” was an exceptional example of that, where the science wasn’t just “physics” but also “biology”. Here (and I’m not sure whether this is true to the book… this is one of Stephen King’s I haven’t read) there seems to be no rules involved at all. Things happen fairly randomly: shape-shifting and effects on physical objects happen with no rational explanation; the kids can see things adults can’t see. (Why?). In fact the “adults” – the usual mix of Stephen King dysfunctional small-town crazies – seem to have no significant part in the story at all. It’s all like some lame teenage fantasy where actions (a number of individuals in the story meet their demise) seem to carry no legal consequences whatsoever. I half expected Bill to wake up – Dallas style – at the end and realise it had all been an “awful dream”!
In particular, the denouement is highly dissatisfying. An opportunity for a (very black) twist in the plot is discarded. Pennywise the clown’s departure is both lame and unconvincing. And there are numerous loose ends that are never properly tied down (what was that “floaters descending” dialogue about?…. it was just never followed through!).
It’s not all bad though. The location shoots in Bangor, Maine and the Ontario countryside are all beautifully rendered by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung (“Stoker”) and where the film clicks with the young cast it clicks well and enjoyably. I just wish that the overall film wasn’t just such a jumbled-up mess. Blame for that must lie with the screenwriting team and director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”). I’m going to give it a kicking in my rating, since with all the marketing build-up it was certainly a disappointment. I see though that at the time of writing that this film sports an unfathomably high imdb rating of 8.0/10 so I’ll acknowledge that somebody must have seen something more in this than I did!!
I had in mind that with the disturbing and dangerous “clowning around” that happened in the summer of 2016 that this film had been shot a while ago and the release delayed until now for fear of adding ‘clown-flavoured fuel’ to the fire. But it appears that filming only completed in September of last year, so that appears not to be the case.
The film starts memorably and brutally with the “drain scene” from the trailer. And very effective it is too. “Great!” you think… this is a spookfest that has legs! Unfortunately, for me at least, it all went downhill from there. The film really doesn’t seem to know WHAT it’s trying to be. There are elements of “Stand By Me”; elements of “Alien”; elements of “The Conjuring”, all thrown into a cinematic blender and pulsed well.
The most endearing aspects of the movie are the interactions of the small-town kids, with this aspect of the film bearing the closest comparison with J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8”. This is carried by the great performances of the young actors involved, with Jaeden Lieberher (so memorable in “Midnight Special”) as Bill; Jeremy Ray Taylor (“Ant Man”) as Ben (‘the chubby one’); and Finn Wolfhard, in his big-screen premiere and sporting an absurd set of glasses, as the wise-cracking Ritchie.
Standout for my though was the then 14-year old Sophia Lillis as Beverly (the nearest equivalent to the Elle Fanning role in “Super 8”). This young lady has SUCH screen presence, reminiscent of Emma Watson in the Harry Potter films. I think she is a name to watch!
While commenting on the acting I do need to acknowledge Bill Skarsgård (“Atomic Blonde” and son of Stellan Skarsgård) who is creepily effective as Pennywise the clown.
Having a film that just centred on the pubescent interplay between the youngsters and their battles against the near-psychopathic school bully Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton, “Captain Fantastic”) would have kept me well-entertained for two hours. However, in the same way that the hugely over-inflated Sci-Fi ending of “Super 8” rather detracted from that film, so the clown-related story popping up all the time just irritated me to distraction. (“WILL YOU JUST FECK OFF AND LEAVE US TO FIND OUT WHO BEVERLY GETS OFF WITH???!!”)
While the film has a number of good jump-scares, a lot of them – especially those with excessive use of CGI – just don’t really work. There are normally no “outcomes” from the scares. It’s all a bit like a ghost train where the carriage rounds a corner, something jumps out, and then the carriage moves on round the corner again! What makes a great horror film is where the “science” of the horror is well thought through. “Alien” was an exceptional example of that, where the science wasn’t just “physics” but also “biology”. Here (and I’m not sure whether this is true to the book… this is one of Stephen King’s I haven’t read) there seems to be no rules involved at all. Things happen fairly randomly: shape-shifting and effects on physical objects happen with no rational explanation; the kids can see things adults can’t see. (Why?). In fact the “adults” – the usual mix of Stephen King dysfunctional small-town crazies – seem to have no significant part in the story at all. It’s all like some lame teenage fantasy where actions (a number of individuals in the story meet their demise) seem to carry no legal consequences whatsoever. I half expected Bill to wake up – Dallas style – at the end and realise it had all been an “awful dream”!
In particular, the denouement is highly dissatisfying. An opportunity for a (very black) twist in the plot is discarded. Pennywise the clown’s departure is both lame and unconvincing. And there are numerous loose ends that are never properly tied down (what was that “floaters descending” dialogue about?…. it was just never followed through!).
It’s not all bad though. The location shoots in Bangor, Maine and the Ontario countryside are all beautifully rendered by cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung (“Stoker”) and where the film clicks with the young cast it clicks well and enjoyably. I just wish that the overall film wasn’t just such a jumbled-up mess. Blame for that must lie with the screenwriting team and director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”). I’m going to give it a kicking in my rating, since with all the marketing build-up it was certainly a disappointment. I see though that at the time of writing that this film sports an unfathomably high imdb rating of 8.0/10 so I’ll acknowledge that somebody must have seen something more in this than I did!!
Kyera (8 KP) rated The 5th Wave: Book 1 in Books
Jan 31, 2018
What do you do when the Others come? You can't trust your senses, you can't trust anyone. Your only goal is to survive and maybe keep some of your humanity intact. When you can't trust anything or anyone - do you shoot first or take the chance when that hesitation will probably mean your life?
When the first wave comes, all technology is gone in a moment. An EMP takes everything out. The second wave caused massive tsunamis and destroyed the coasts of the world. The third wave infected and killed 97% of the remaining population in brutal fashion. The fourth wave destroyed all trust in humanity and introduced the constant threat of drones. The wave that makes you question every action... and the fifth wave... is us.
Cassie must survive in this strange world with no mother, father or brother to care for anymore - fighting and living because if she is the last human on Earth she refuses to go out with a whimper. She will fight until she can fight no longer. But she is not the only body left, even if she may be the only one with her own mind left. It is possible that one in every three people left is an Other. A Silencer. An Imposter. Has your mind and body been hacked? Do they look like us or can they make themselves look like us? Or maybe they've been here all along. Waiting. That's when you can't trust your eyes. You may be looking at an Other and not even realize it.
We next meet Ben, who must rediscover his fighting spirit if he wants to survive and survive he must. After not succumbing to the virus that infected him, he cannot give up. Taught to fight and given a new name, he must battle for his place.
Part III shows us a new perspective, an Other awakened in a human body and given a mission. To kill. To finish the human race, one by one. He has been tracking Cassie for a while and takes aim. Shoots. Traps her, but for some reason cannot bring himself to finish her.
Hunted. Shot. Then saved? Cassie wakes up being tended to by Evan on the family farm. He is the only one left of his family. Evan helps to nurse her back to health, bakes bread, carves walking sticks and wants to help her rescue her brother Sammy. What can't this farm boy do? And why does this make us so suspicious? Even Cassie can't quite bring herself to trust him. There are just little things that seem off, like a life-long farm boy with smooth hands and perfect cuticles. No callouses to be found. There's a small nagging feeling in her mind that asks- what if he's an Other?
The characters are well written and believable. You feel for them. Root for their successes and hurt when they fail. You wish for their survival despite the current chaos and destruction of the world. The world is familiar and yet fundamentally altered by the Others.
The book draws you in from the start and you puzzle over people and motives. Who will survive and if the human race survives this destruction, how will this ordeal fundamentally change the survivors? I am constantly questioning my conclusions and re-evaluating what I believe i happening. A great book is able to reveal just enough that the entire plot is not given away by page ten. This post-apocalyptic, alien-invasion novel is highly recommenede, especially if you plan to watch the movie. I cannot wait to read the next book, Infinite Sea!
When the first wave comes, all technology is gone in a moment. An EMP takes everything out. The second wave caused massive tsunamis and destroyed the coasts of the world. The third wave infected and killed 97% of the remaining population in brutal fashion. The fourth wave destroyed all trust in humanity and introduced the constant threat of drones. The wave that makes you question every action... and the fifth wave... is us.
Cassie must survive in this strange world with no mother, father or brother to care for anymore - fighting and living because if she is the last human on Earth she refuses to go out with a whimper. She will fight until she can fight no longer. But she is not the only body left, even if she may be the only one with her own mind left. It is possible that one in every three people left is an Other. A Silencer. An Imposter. Has your mind and body been hacked? Do they look like us or can they make themselves look like us? Or maybe they've been here all along. Waiting. That's when you can't trust your eyes. You may be looking at an Other and not even realize it.
We next meet Ben, who must rediscover his fighting spirit if he wants to survive and survive he must. After not succumbing to the virus that infected him, he cannot give up. Taught to fight and given a new name, he must battle for his place.
Part III shows us a new perspective, an Other awakened in a human body and given a mission. To kill. To finish the human race, one by one. He has been tracking Cassie for a while and takes aim. Shoots. Traps her, but for some reason cannot bring himself to finish her.
Hunted. Shot. Then saved? Cassie wakes up being tended to by Evan on the family farm. He is the only one left of his family. Evan helps to nurse her back to health, bakes bread, carves walking sticks and wants to help her rescue her brother Sammy. What can't this farm boy do? And why does this make us so suspicious? Even Cassie can't quite bring herself to trust him. There are just little things that seem off, like a life-long farm boy with smooth hands and perfect cuticles. No callouses to be found. There's a small nagging feeling in her mind that asks- what if he's an Other?
The characters are well written and believable. You feel for them. Root for their successes and hurt when they fail. You wish for their survival despite the current chaos and destruction of the world. The world is familiar and yet fundamentally altered by the Others.
The book draws you in from the start and you puzzle over people and motives. Who will survive and if the human race survives this destruction, how will this ordeal fundamentally change the survivors? I am constantly questioning my conclusions and re-evaluating what I believe i happening. A great book is able to reveal just enough that the entire plot is not given away by page ten. This post-apocalyptic, alien-invasion novel is highly recommenede, especially if you plan to watch the movie. I cannot wait to read the next book, Infinite Sea!