Search
Search results

LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Fanatic (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2020 (Updated Sep 16, 2020)
Man what even is this film.
John Travolta's first line is "I can't talk too long, I gotta poo." At one point, he's dressed head to toe as Jason Voorhees for pretty much no reason. It's directed by Fred Durst. Devon Sawa's character listens to Limp Bizkit in his car and fucking loves it whilst saying the following: "You okay with some music? You like a little Limp Bizkit? Like a little Bizkit? Yeah? Nice and loud? I used to listen to this back in the day, this is hot. Oh my god, that is nice, that is nice! All right, here we go baby."
Not sure if this film is a blessing or a curse really. Is this Travolta's best performance ever or his absolute worst? I honestly can't tell! Shit is wild. One thing is for sure, Durst tries to make it "arty" by including an in your face voiceover narration now and again, and add in animated sketching sements when he feels like it because why the fuck not.
And it has a really nonsensical ending to the point of severe frustration.
I'm actually really thankful to everyone involved for providing us with a movie that is surely destined to become one big meme.
That ridiculous Limp Bizkit advertisement though, that's worth a star in my book.
John Travolta's first line is "I can't talk too long, I gotta poo." At one point, he's dressed head to toe as Jason Voorhees for pretty much no reason. It's directed by Fred Durst. Devon Sawa's character listens to Limp Bizkit in his car and fucking loves it whilst saying the following: "You okay with some music? You like a little Limp Bizkit? Like a little Bizkit? Yeah? Nice and loud? I used to listen to this back in the day, this is hot. Oh my god, that is nice, that is nice! All right, here we go baby."
Not sure if this film is a blessing or a curse really. Is this Travolta's best performance ever or his absolute worst? I honestly can't tell! Shit is wild. One thing is for sure, Durst tries to make it "arty" by including an in your face voiceover narration now and again, and add in animated sketching sements when he feels like it because why the fuck not.
And it has a really nonsensical ending to the point of severe frustration.
I'm actually really thankful to everyone involved for providing us with a movie that is surely destined to become one big meme.
That ridiculous Limp Bizkit advertisement though, that's worth a star in my book.

Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Pete’s Dragon is a staple of my childhood. It was one of the three movies I would always choose to watch. So, naturally, I was a little worried when I heard about the new movie earlier this year. The teaser trailer didn’t give much to go by, but it looked promising. I trying something new this year where I do not watch anything beyond the teaser trailer (believe me, it’s killing me not to watch the new Rogue One trailer), so that’s all I had going into this. And I was pleasantly surprised.
39 years after the original, David Lowery brings us the re-invention of Pete’s Dragon. His aim was not to remake the original film, but to reinvent it. And that he did. PD opens up with a family traveling through a forest on a road trip. The young boy, Pete (Levi Alexander) is reading from a book about a lost puppy name Elliot. A tragic accident occurs, which leaves Pete by himself in the forest. As he starts to wander, a pack of wolves begins to close in on him, only to be thwarted by… you guessed it. A dragon.
Flash forward 6 years, and we now see an older Pete (Oakes Fegley) running around through the forest with Elliot, the dragon who he bonded with over the years. Pete happens upon a forest ranger, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) as she is scouting the forest, unmarking trees that were marked for cut down. She’s not a rebel, just protecting the habitat of an owl. Turns out her fiancé, Jack (Wes Bentley), and his brother, Gavin (Karl Urban), run the company that is tearing down the forest. One day, they happen upon Pete and bring him home, but Pete misses Elliot, and Elliot misses Pete. In an effort to get back to him, Elliot is discovered by Gavin who wants to hunt down Pete and bring him in. Grace seeks assistance from her father, Meachum (Robert Redford), who was always thought of as a crazy old man with his wild story of a dragon he met so many years ago. Can they help save Elliot from Gavin and his men?
While a little darker than the original, I found that I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. There are some plot holes to consider, and a little unbelievable on how fast the story develops in time passed in the universe set up here, but you have to understand that this movie is geared toward children. And I think they did well in creating an entertaining film for children and nostalgic adults alike. In fact, this screening was the quietest family screening I have ever attended. There were plenty of kids in the audience, but they were captivated.
Keeping in mind that this is truly a children’s movie, my biggest gripe was the absence of my favorite scene from the original (scorched apples, anyone?). But all in all, it is definitely something to get out to theaters to see. Lowery had indicated that he chose the appearance for Elliot as he did because he wanted to portray a dragon you could hug. Success, Mr. Lowery. Success. Pete’s Dragon is good fun for the whole family, so what are you waiting for? Go see it, already.
39 years after the original, David Lowery brings us the re-invention of Pete’s Dragon. His aim was not to remake the original film, but to reinvent it. And that he did. PD opens up with a family traveling through a forest on a road trip. The young boy, Pete (Levi Alexander) is reading from a book about a lost puppy name Elliot. A tragic accident occurs, which leaves Pete by himself in the forest. As he starts to wander, a pack of wolves begins to close in on him, only to be thwarted by… you guessed it. A dragon.
Flash forward 6 years, and we now see an older Pete (Oakes Fegley) running around through the forest with Elliot, the dragon who he bonded with over the years. Pete happens upon a forest ranger, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) as she is scouting the forest, unmarking trees that were marked for cut down. She’s not a rebel, just protecting the habitat of an owl. Turns out her fiancé, Jack (Wes Bentley), and his brother, Gavin (Karl Urban), run the company that is tearing down the forest. One day, they happen upon Pete and bring him home, but Pete misses Elliot, and Elliot misses Pete. In an effort to get back to him, Elliot is discovered by Gavin who wants to hunt down Pete and bring him in. Grace seeks assistance from her father, Meachum (Robert Redford), who was always thought of as a crazy old man with his wild story of a dragon he met so many years ago. Can they help save Elliot from Gavin and his men?
While a little darker than the original, I found that I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. There are some plot holes to consider, and a little unbelievable on how fast the story develops in time passed in the universe set up here, but you have to understand that this movie is geared toward children. And I think they did well in creating an entertaining film for children and nostalgic adults alike. In fact, this screening was the quietest family screening I have ever attended. There were plenty of kids in the audience, but they were captivated.
Keeping in mind that this is truly a children’s movie, my biggest gripe was the absence of my favorite scene from the original (scorched apples, anyone?). But all in all, it is definitely something to get out to theaters to see. Lowery had indicated that he chose the appearance for Elliot as he did because he wanted to portray a dragon you could hug. Success, Mr. Lowery. Success. Pete’s Dragon is good fun for the whole family, so what are you waiting for? Go see it, already.

Andy K (10823 KP) rated Clerks (1994) in Movies
May 6, 2019
Dante and Randal - together forever
I had the pleasure of meeting Kevin Smith when he appeared at the Hollywood Video manager's meeting in Las Vegas in the summer of 1999. Clerks was revered at that time by all of us since we were living the life of Randal to a certain extent being video store managers. We could all relate to the examples of stupid customers and things we wanted to say to them, but couldn't since "the customer is always right".
Smith's appearance at our meeting must've shocked the Mormon founder, Mark Wattles, when Smith began using excessive profanity and talking about giving blow jobs in the bathroom for cash.
My own experiences as a video store manager were reflected in a lot of what Randal says especially when it came to movie recommendations. I'll never forget being asked "Which is better, Booty Call or Schindler's List" or arguing with customers during the "full screen" vs. "widescreen" debate explaining widescreen was better because you could see the entire picture instead of the side of the film being cut off.
Every time I rewatch Clerks it always reminds me of those times and how I reflect fondly on them now so many years later.
Smith was a funny guy and he certainly tells good stories if you have ever seen one of his stand-up specials where he talks about meeting Prince, Bruce Willis or his experiences writing a Superman draft.
Jay and Silent Bob are iconic too even getting their own reboot movie now.
Clerks is a comedy cinema cult classic having lived far beyond its original $27,000 budget where Smith had to sell his comic book collection and its characters will live on forever due to some classic screenwriting.
Smith's appearance at our meeting must've shocked the Mormon founder, Mark Wattles, when Smith began using excessive profanity and talking about giving blow jobs in the bathroom for cash.
My own experiences as a video store manager were reflected in a lot of what Randal says especially when it came to movie recommendations. I'll never forget being asked "Which is better, Booty Call or Schindler's List" or arguing with customers during the "full screen" vs. "widescreen" debate explaining widescreen was better because you could see the entire picture instead of the side of the film being cut off.
Every time I rewatch Clerks it always reminds me of those times and how I reflect fondly on them now so many years later.
Smith was a funny guy and he certainly tells good stories if you have ever seen one of his stand-up specials where he talks about meeting Prince, Bruce Willis or his experiences writing a Superman draft.
Jay and Silent Bob are iconic too even getting their own reboot movie now.
Clerks is a comedy cinema cult classic having lived far beyond its original $27,000 budget where Smith had to sell his comic book collection and its characters will live on forever due to some classic screenwriting.

DFW Deco: Modernistic Architecture of Northeast Texas
Book
Vivid imagery and original research are the hallmarks of DFW Deco: Modernistic Architecture of North...

Dean Connelly (17 KP) rated Batman: Return to Arkham in Video Games
Jan 10, 2018
You get to be Batman (3 more)
Voices of Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill
Both storylines are worthy of any comic book or movie
Just everything about it
I’ll get committed to this Asylum any day.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I was never a fan of these sort of games but it came out and I love it. You’ve got the best Batman and the best Joker in 2 of the best games I’ve ever played. Asylum you are stuck to Arkham Island and there isnt much you can do, City I feel is the best, more characters, more gadgets, more abilities, bigger environment, bigger bad guys to fight, loads more trophies. There also is side missions ranging from helping Bane to facing off against Deadshot. What I really love is that no character is the same from previous movies or TV series, I mean Poison Ivy is seriously fit, Freeze looks futuristic, Catwoman looks like a prostitute, you can play as Catwoman, challenges on both Games are good, city’s is tougher though. If you love a good game or a fan of the Dark Knight like me, you won’t be disappointed

Reflections on Exile: And Other Literary and Cultural Essays
Book
With their powerful blend of political and aesthetic concerns, Edward W. Said's writings have...

Awix (3310 KP) rated Forever And A Day in Books
Oct 20, 2020 (Updated Oct 20, 2020)
Pastiche thriller featuring you-know-who. It's 1950, and agent 007 is killed in action while investigating drug dealing in the south of France. The head of the secret service decides to send in a newly-promoted operative to investigate the death, a young chap by the name of Bond...
Horowitz's novel tries to do the same thing as the movie version of Casino Royale - to show how Bond becomes Bond. At this he is only really marginally successful, as Bond starts the novel as a pretty icy brute and ends only more icy and brutal. That said, the book evokes the Fleming formula rather well: there is the usual mixture of globe-trotting, good living, maniacal snobbery, action, torture, and sex in just about the right proportions. Some may complain that some contemporary politics have snuck into what's essentially an escapist fantasy - one villain is a bouffant-haired American tycoon with wandering hands, who thinks America should put its own interests first, while another gets a big speech about the smallness and insignificance of Britain, and its reliance on a close relationship with Europe if it wants to prosper. Nevertheless, fun, pacy stuff and very readable.
Horowitz's novel tries to do the same thing as the movie version of Casino Royale - to show how Bond becomes Bond. At this he is only really marginally successful, as Bond starts the novel as a pretty icy brute and ends only more icy and brutal. That said, the book evokes the Fleming formula rather well: there is the usual mixture of globe-trotting, good living, maniacal snobbery, action, torture, and sex in just about the right proportions. Some may complain that some contemporary politics have snuck into what's essentially an escapist fantasy - one villain is a bouffant-haired American tycoon with wandering hands, who thinks America should put its own interests first, while another gets a big speech about the smallness and insignificance of Britain, and its reliance on a close relationship with Europe if it wants to prosper. Nevertheless, fun, pacy stuff and very readable.

LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Pinocchio (2022) in Movies
Oct 13, 2022
Another day, another "live action retelling" of a Disney classic that manages to disappoint. With the exception of Maleficent and most of The Jungle Book (and I guess Aladdin wasn't completely horrible), these Disney remakes have been duds, thanks to the general air of hollow souless-ness that surrounds them. This is precisely the main detriment with Pinocchio. It's existence in the first place invites comparisons to the original, a truly beloved animation. In turn, this remake offers nothing of value. Anything new on display feels vapid, and everything familiar is far superior within the source material. You have to ask "well what was the point"? It was the same with Mulan. It was the same with Cinderella. It was the same with The Lion King, and I have no doubt that it will be the same with Hercules when that eventually arrives. Disney seem content with shitting out lifeless rehashes for a quick buck and it's probably not going to change.
Tom Hanks tries his best. Monstro looks kind of cool. Jiminy Cricket being voiced scarily accurately by Joseph Gordon Levitt is low key hilarious. Otherwise, this movie is only good for fire wood.
Tom Hanks tries his best. Monstro looks kind of cool. Jiminy Cricket being voiced scarily accurately by Joseph Gordon Levitt is low key hilarious. Otherwise, this movie is only good for fire wood.

Karina Longworth recommended Kitty Foyle (1940) in Movies (curated)

Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The In Between in Books
Feb 1, 2018
I confess that this book was not exactly what I was expecting. The novel appears to tell a typical tale of YA love, but it also spends much of its time in a paranormal, mystical world of the "In Between." It's very odd and I wasn't expecting so much talk of Heaven and Hell, despite the hint from the title.
The story follows Tara Jenkins and Justin Westcroft. Friends as children, they become close again after Tara saves Justin's life, when he nearly drowns in an accident at the public beach. Now in high school, Justin is a popular soccer star, while Tara is just a "regular gal." Tara and Justin quickly fall madly in love and become each other's world.
Part of my issue with this book is just that - Tara and Justin are in high school and the entire book centers on their "great romance" and the idea that they are made for each other, destined for all eternity. Some people pull it off, even if it's a cheesy YA series like Twilight. You find yourself rooting for Bella and Edward. Here... I don't know. Pierce's characters just aren't well-developed enough. I like Tara, but I'm not fully invested in her. I actually cared for Justin a bit more (he seemed to have more of a head on his shoulders), but I don't get to learn enough about him, or really get to know him enough as I read the novel. Instead, you are just left wondering why two young kids are so in love and so convinced, at this age, that they are meant for each other. Instead of falling for their love story, it seems like a Made for TV Special.
Once Justin actually dies (and I'm not giving anything away, the book's summary is forthright in telling you that Tara can't save Justin a second time) and he goes to the "In Between," you find him in this weird mythical, mystical land, and it's just odd. I do feel empathy for Justin as he struggles to get back to Tara, and even for Tara, as she grieves for Justin, but it often feels like two kids playing at being grown up. With the distraction of some weird mystical characters thrown in to boot.
That being said, the book managed to keep my interest. I kept reading, wanting to know what would happen to Justin and Tara. Would they kill them both? Would they be reunited? Surely it wouldn't just end with him stuck here and her still pining away? After all this?! In the end, the ending is rather "pat" and the book just sort of ends.
Come to think of it, this probably *would* make a great Lifetime movie. And I'd no doubt guiltily enjoy it with a box of chocolates.
(Note, I received a free digital copy of The In Between in return for a honest review.)
The story follows Tara Jenkins and Justin Westcroft. Friends as children, they become close again after Tara saves Justin's life, when he nearly drowns in an accident at the public beach. Now in high school, Justin is a popular soccer star, while Tara is just a "regular gal." Tara and Justin quickly fall madly in love and become each other's world.
Part of my issue with this book is just that - Tara and Justin are in high school and the entire book centers on their "great romance" and the idea that they are made for each other, destined for all eternity. Some people pull it off, even if it's a cheesy YA series like Twilight. You find yourself rooting for Bella and Edward. Here... I don't know. Pierce's characters just aren't well-developed enough. I like Tara, but I'm not fully invested in her. I actually cared for Justin a bit more (he seemed to have more of a head on his shoulders), but I don't get to learn enough about him, or really get to know him enough as I read the novel. Instead, you are just left wondering why two young kids are so in love and so convinced, at this age, that they are meant for each other. Instead of falling for their love story, it seems like a Made for TV Special.
Once Justin actually dies (and I'm not giving anything away, the book's summary is forthright in telling you that Tara can't save Justin a second time) and he goes to the "In Between," you find him in this weird mythical, mystical land, and it's just odd. I do feel empathy for Justin as he struggles to get back to Tara, and even for Tara, as she grieves for Justin, but it often feels like two kids playing at being grown up. With the distraction of some weird mystical characters thrown in to boot.
That being said, the book managed to keep my interest. I kept reading, wanting to know what would happen to Justin and Tara. Would they kill them both? Would they be reunited? Surely it wouldn't just end with him stuck here and her still pining away? After all this?! In the end, the ending is rather "pat" and the book just sort of ends.
Come to think of it, this probably *would* make a great Lifetime movie. And I'd no doubt guiltily enjoy it with a box of chocolates.
(Note, I received a free digital copy of The In Between in return for a honest review.)