Search
Toilet Time - Mini Games
Games and Entertainment
App
Are you tired of reading all your shampoo packages during your time on the toilet? Memorizing your...
Lee (2222 KP) rated Happy Death Day (2017) in Movies
Oct 26, 2017
Plenty of humour (1 more)
Jessica Rothe is great
Enjoable Groundhog Day/Scream Mashup
It's not that scary, and there's no real blood or gore for die hard horror fans to enjoy, but Happy Death Day - the latest offering from Blumhouse Productions - still manages to deliver a wildly entertaining mashup of Groundhog Day and Scream.
College girl Tree Gelbman wakes up in the dorm of a boy she doesn't remember spending the night with. She has a pounding headache and can't wait to get out of there as quickly as possible. Sneering at the goth on her way out, avoiding the clipboard wielding tree hugger and blanking the less popular girl that smiles at her as she returns to her sorority house. Back in her room, her room mate has a birthday cupcake for Tree in honour of her special day, which she dumps in the bin on her way out to the class she's late for. Later on, we discover that she's sleeping with one of her college teachers, whose wife nearly catches them together. There certainly do seem to be a lot of people who have every right to be pissed at Tree. And, later that evening on her way to a party, Tree is approached by someone wearing a black hoodie and a baby mask. As the mysterious figure murders her, she wakes up, back in the boys dorm from that morning, and she finds herself having to endure her birth/death day once more.
Tree is understandably confused, as the days events begin to play out exactly as they did before, right up until the point where she's murdered again by the mask wearing killer. From there she goes through stages of anger, despair and acceptance, eventually coming to the conclusion that no matter what she does or where she hides, the Baby Faced killer is always going to find her and kill her, triggering the reset button on the day in the process. It's up to her to try and whittle down that big list of suspects, and take out the killer before they get chance to kill her. The only trouble is, each time that Tree dies the injuries she sustained leave a negative impact on her body, so she only has a limited number of days to find the killer and break the loop before she is gone forever.
So much of this movie rests on Jessica Rothe as Tree, and she just nails it, successfully moving Tree from victim to full-on bad-ass and becoming more and more likeable as she sets about changing her ways in order to get close to those potential suspects. There's a lot of humour throughout, and a pretty decent twist towards the end, just to keep you on your toes. Overall I really liked this. There's even a nice, last minute mention of Groundhog Day, the classic movie that this owes so much to.
College girl Tree Gelbman wakes up in the dorm of a boy she doesn't remember spending the night with. She has a pounding headache and can't wait to get out of there as quickly as possible. Sneering at the goth on her way out, avoiding the clipboard wielding tree hugger and blanking the less popular girl that smiles at her as she returns to her sorority house. Back in her room, her room mate has a birthday cupcake for Tree in honour of her special day, which she dumps in the bin on her way out to the class she's late for. Later on, we discover that she's sleeping with one of her college teachers, whose wife nearly catches them together. There certainly do seem to be a lot of people who have every right to be pissed at Tree. And, later that evening on her way to a party, Tree is approached by someone wearing a black hoodie and a baby mask. As the mysterious figure murders her, she wakes up, back in the boys dorm from that morning, and she finds herself having to endure her birth/death day once more.
Tree is understandably confused, as the days events begin to play out exactly as they did before, right up until the point where she's murdered again by the mask wearing killer. From there she goes through stages of anger, despair and acceptance, eventually coming to the conclusion that no matter what she does or where she hides, the Baby Faced killer is always going to find her and kill her, triggering the reset button on the day in the process. It's up to her to try and whittle down that big list of suspects, and take out the killer before they get chance to kill her. The only trouble is, each time that Tree dies the injuries she sustained leave a negative impact on her body, so she only has a limited number of days to find the killer and break the loop before she is gone forever.
So much of this movie rests on Jessica Rothe as Tree, and she just nails it, successfully moving Tree from victim to full-on bad-ass and becoming more and more likeable as she sets about changing her ways in order to get close to those potential suspects. There's a lot of humour throughout, and a pretty decent twist towards the end, just to keep you on your toes. Overall I really liked this. There's even a nice, last minute mention of Groundhog Day, the classic movie that this owes so much to.
Welgora: A New Forest Artist's Book
Book
WELGORA: The Equestrian Art of Alan Langford is written by the New Forest artist Alan Langford and...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Of lazy Italian summer nights.
It took me two sittings on different transatlantic flights to get through Luca Guadagnino’s much vaunted coming of age film. And I accept that this piecemeal approach might not have enhanced my opinion of the movie. Because I’m going to upset some of you who claimed it to be your “film of the year” last year. While I enjoyed it, it certainly didn’t grab me like that.
What I will admit is that the film is gloriously sun-drenched and atmospheric, set as it is in the countryside around Crema in northern Italy. Shut your eyes and you can almost smell the olive trees and the bolognese simmering on the stove.
You have to hand it to them: the film just reeks of Italian class.
The story, set in 1983, concerns the 17 year-old musical prodigy Elio (Timothée Chalamet, “Lady Bird“, “Interstellar“) who, with his good looks, has the opportunity to seduce his fair share of Italian babes, specifically the gorgeous Marzia (Esther Garrel) who has the hots for him. Although not one to look a gift vagina in the mouth, Elio is sexually conflicted and finds himself increasingly drawn, romantically, to the dashing and cock-sure 24-year old American visitor Oliver (Armie Hammer, “Free Fire“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“): a feeling that is, initially, reluctantly returned.
Love unrequited. Lady in red Marzia (Esther Garrel) – will she be eventually told to get on her bike?
The Oscar-winning screenplay by James Ivory (he of Merchant and Ivory production fame) is rich and deep with lines that roll off the actors’ tongues like syrup. The action also includes the most inappropriate use of foodstuffs since “American Pie” (and presumably that went in the bin afterwards!).
Family times around the dinner table can get exceptionally loud.
The drama is slow and drawn-out, so action-film fans will be asleep within the first 30 minutes. That wasn’t a problem for me…. it is a film in which you can really soak up the atmosphere. And it exquisitely explores the genuine pain of first love.
The pain of first love.
But what I’m afraid I really couldn’t relate to was Elio’s action about half-way through the film. In the main, he acts as a typically introspective and sensitive teenager, slightly awkward and bashful in approaching sexual matters. But then in a pivotal scene he makes a daring move which – to me – seemed completely out of character. This rather threw me, and I never really got my equilibrium back with the movie after that.
Elio and Oliver…. with Elio about to do something out of character.
It’s no doubt a finely crafted film. The sex scenes are beautifully shot and could never be accused of veering towards the pornographic. But I’m honestly not sure it’s a film that gripped me enough to seek it out to watch again in the future. (Sorry CMBYN lovers!)
What I will admit is that the film is gloriously sun-drenched and atmospheric, set as it is in the countryside around Crema in northern Italy. Shut your eyes and you can almost smell the olive trees and the bolognese simmering on the stove.
You have to hand it to them: the film just reeks of Italian class.
The story, set in 1983, concerns the 17 year-old musical prodigy Elio (Timothée Chalamet, “Lady Bird“, “Interstellar“) who, with his good looks, has the opportunity to seduce his fair share of Italian babes, specifically the gorgeous Marzia (Esther Garrel) who has the hots for him. Although not one to look a gift vagina in the mouth, Elio is sexually conflicted and finds himself increasingly drawn, romantically, to the dashing and cock-sure 24-year old American visitor Oliver (Armie Hammer, “Free Fire“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“): a feeling that is, initially, reluctantly returned.
Love unrequited. Lady in red Marzia (Esther Garrel) – will she be eventually told to get on her bike?
The Oscar-winning screenplay by James Ivory (he of Merchant and Ivory production fame) is rich and deep with lines that roll off the actors’ tongues like syrup. The action also includes the most inappropriate use of foodstuffs since “American Pie” (and presumably that went in the bin afterwards!).
Family times around the dinner table can get exceptionally loud.
The drama is slow and drawn-out, so action-film fans will be asleep within the first 30 minutes. That wasn’t a problem for me…. it is a film in which you can really soak up the atmosphere. And it exquisitely explores the genuine pain of first love.
The pain of first love.
But what I’m afraid I really couldn’t relate to was Elio’s action about half-way through the film. In the main, he acts as a typically introspective and sensitive teenager, slightly awkward and bashful in approaching sexual matters. But then in a pivotal scene he makes a daring move which – to me – seemed completely out of character. This rather threw me, and I never really got my equilibrium back with the movie after that.
Elio and Oliver…. with Elio about to do something out of character.
It’s no doubt a finely crafted film. The sex scenes are beautifully shot and could never be accused of veering towards the pornographic. But I’m honestly not sure it’s a film that gripped me enough to seek it out to watch again in the future. (Sorry CMBYN lovers!)
DocAS - PDF Converter, Annotate PDF, Take Notes and Good Reader
Productivity and Business
App
DocAS lets you take note, sketch your ideas, annotate PDFs, convert other document format to PDF, do...
Oje, ich wachse!
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
Der weltweite Bestseller unter den Baby-Apps von “Oje, ich wachse!” ist ein personalisierter...
Sheridan (209 KP) rated the Xbox One version of Fallout 76 in Video Games
Dec 29, 2018
Challenging Gameplay (3 more)
Huge Open World
Ability to Modify Items
CAMP Set Up
Tragic Graphics (4 more)
Online Only
No Dogmeat :(
STASH box limit
Feels Repetitive
A Game to End an Epic Series?
Let's face it - there's a lot of Fallout fans out there and these fans have a whole heap to say about this game. The big question is - is this a game for the fans? Not really, no. I don't *hate* it, but I'm not totally on board with it either. Now I've been playing the Fallout games for a very long time, I've completed both Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas serveral times and have completed the majority of Fallout 4 too. Fallout 76 is just - not a good game. There are aspects I quite like - the CAMP, the STASH boxes littered around so you don't have to fast travel all the time, the ability to modify weapons and amour, the huge open world to explore - I like all of that. What I hate is that it just doesn't feel like a Fallout game, the storyline just isn't there - I don't just start playing and realise literal hours have passed. There's no NPCs, no companions and worst of all there's no Dogmeat. I mean, sure other companions I understand, it's an online only game, I can see how running around with a crew could become combersome but - I miss my doggo! I can't stand that it's online only - sure give us the option to but I've never been a fan of being forced to play online, I game to relax, not to interact with others - plus no pause is extremely annoying. The graphics are terrible considering what other companies have come out with in 2018, it feels like FO3 graphics. The limit on the STASH box is currently 600lbs but mine is full and I keep having to get rid of stuff that I actually need. The repetitive going back and forth on missions and having to travel from one side of the map to the other while doing a mission is extremely frustrating, especially considering you're pretty much always carrying too much stuff (you literally need a ton of weapons, ammo, food & water to survive).
Overall I don't love it, but I don't hate it.
In short;
Was it worth the $120 preorder price? F**k no.
Is it something I'll play complusively until I've done everything?
No.
Does it ensare you and leave you excited to play again?
No.
Does it exceed Bethesda's big exciting lead up to release?
Certainly not.
Is it the worst game ever?
No, not really.
Is it truly a Fallout game?
Nope.
Does it feel like a dodgy, half-assed turd that the developers crapped out to make money?
Why, yes, yes it does.
Is it a game for Fallout fans?
Maybe, if you're into online play with friends then I guess? If you look past all the bugs, the sub-par graphics and the dull unimaginative storyline sure, this might be a game for you.
Would I recommend it?
No, not unless it's in the $20 bin at EB and you have literally NOTHING else to play.
I'm just saying if this game were a puddle, I could stand in it bare foot and not get my feet wet - that's how much depth it has...
It isn't the *worst* thing I've spent money on (Technomancer takes that spot with Recore as a close second), but it's definitely not something to play if you're a Fallout fan. Just stick to the old stuff, it's waaaay better...
Overall I don't love it, but I don't hate it.
In short;
Was it worth the $120 preorder price? F**k no.
Is it something I'll play complusively until I've done everything?
No.
Does it ensare you and leave you excited to play again?
No.
Does it exceed Bethesda's big exciting lead up to release?
Certainly not.
Is it the worst game ever?
No, not really.
Is it truly a Fallout game?
Nope.
Does it feel like a dodgy, half-assed turd that the developers crapped out to make money?
Why, yes, yes it does.
Is it a game for Fallout fans?
Maybe, if you're into online play with friends then I guess? If you look past all the bugs, the sub-par graphics and the dull unimaginative storyline sure, this might be a game for you.
Would I recommend it?
No, not unless it's in the $20 bin at EB and you have literally NOTHING else to play.
I'm just saying if this game were a puddle, I could stand in it bare foot and not get my feet wet - that's how much depth it has...
It isn't the *worst* thing I've spent money on (Technomancer takes that spot with Recore as a close second), but it's definitely not something to play if you're a Fallout fan. Just stick to the old stuff, it's waaaay better...
JT (287 KP) rated RoboCop (2014) in Movies
Mar 17, 2020
Reboot taints the original's good name
If you’re going to remake one of the 80s most iconic action films you’ve got to do it with some balls. Sadly José Padilha dropped this particular ball, pretty spectacularly in fact, to give us a sorry remake and leave fans of the original baying for blood (something which was missing in this).
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Sweeping up a few older films that I wanted to see but missed at the cinema in the last few years. My current IMDb watch list sits at 488, and, unlike this movie, never seems to shrink! There is a lot to keep up with. Bad reviews have kept me away from Alexander Payne’s Downsizing until now. I have to say, without the burden of expectation, it is a lot better than I thought it would be.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.