Search
Search results
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
Honestly, I thought this was best entry in the series since Carpenter's Original.
Halloween II opens up with a hospital sequence referencing the original Halloween II, and honestly, this hospital scene was not only the most intense and frightening sequence from a Halloween movie, but it was also one of the most frightening and intense sequences I've seen period.
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was going to be no easy feat. The series not only made incredible amounts of cash at the box office worldwide, but also garnered an Academy award for best picture for the final film in the series. In the years since the trilogy, writer-director-producer Peter Jackson has not overwhelmed at the box office. His big-budget remake of āKing Kongā performed below expectations and the high-profile collapse of the āHaloā movie to which he was attached, as well as the underwhelming box office of āThe Lovely Bonesā made many people question if Jackson had peaked and was better suited for the lower budgeted independent films that first gave him his start.
When it was announced that a film version of āThe Hobbitā was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fansā interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arriveā that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The groupās goal is to travel to the dwarvesā kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. Itās a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I donāt need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
Thereās been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a childrenās novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, itās a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the filmās battle sequences.
When it was announced that a film version of āThe Hobbitā was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fansā interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arriveā that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The groupās goal is to travel to the dwarvesā kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. Itās a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I donāt need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
Thereās been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a childrenās novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, itās a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the filmās battle sequences.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Firefly: Big Damn Hero (Firefly #1) in Books
Nov 30, 2020
WOW! No, really, <b>WOW!</b> That was gorram incredible!
It's been ages since I read any fan fiction, as so much of it, at the end of the day, was just glorified 'Shipping. It's been almost two months since I have picked up anything (comic or prose) to read, as my wife and I have been through a hellish two months (started with the MS diagnosis, and ended with our 14 year old Mini Schnauzer having to be put to sleep). Long story short, not a whole hell of lot of reading going on my life, as I have been walking around in a fog, caring not one whit about much of anything, including eating or reading.
FIREFLY: BIG DAMN HERO came out on my Kindle November 20th, the day before my 50th birthday (without Lily, our 14 y.o. Mini, no longer with us, it was more like an UnBirthday, as I really felt it was no longer worth celebrating). I read the first two Chapters, or rather, I <i>tried</i>, but they seemed as though I had not when I returned to the book last week.
No matter, for it appeared not to affect my overall satisfaction that the FIREFLY prose novels were off to a very good start indeed! And I was able to focus my attention enough to finish the book in such a quick time!
From beginning to end, we are a presented with a tale of the SERENITY and her crew early in the first Season. Everyone is true to form, from Mal to Wash and Zoƫ to Simon and River, etc. No one ever seemed out-of-character.
At a base level, this was a Mal-centric story. We gain some backstory into his past, on Shadow, just prior to the War. We are also given an inside track to his inner thoughts, allowing us to gain an even deeper understanding of his character, beyond what we learned in the short-lived TV series and subsequent movie SERENITY.
DOCTOR WHO is a hot mess right now, something I am unable to get behind (after being a fan for almost 48 years). Too many changes, good and bad. Fortunately, though, FIREFLY remains the same, untouched, let to continue as the way it was intended, and I am totally fine with that!
If you love FIREFLY as much as I do, you owe it to yourself to pick this one up!
It's been ages since I read any fan fiction, as so much of it, at the end of the day, was just glorified 'Shipping. It's been almost two months since I have picked up anything (comic or prose) to read, as my wife and I have been through a hellish two months (started with the MS diagnosis, and ended with our 14 year old Mini Schnauzer having to be put to sleep). Long story short, not a whole hell of lot of reading going on my life, as I have been walking around in a fog, caring not one whit about much of anything, including eating or reading.
FIREFLY: BIG DAMN HERO came out on my Kindle November 20th, the day before my 50th birthday (without Lily, our 14 y.o. Mini, no longer with us, it was more like an UnBirthday, as I really felt it was no longer worth celebrating). I read the first two Chapters, or rather, I <i>tried</i>, but they seemed as though I had not when I returned to the book last week.
No matter, for it appeared not to affect my overall satisfaction that the FIREFLY prose novels were off to a very good start indeed! And I was able to focus my attention enough to finish the book in such a quick time!
From beginning to end, we are a presented with a tale of the SERENITY and her crew early in the first Season. Everyone is true to form, from Mal to Wash and Zoƫ to Simon and River, etc. No one ever seemed out-of-character.
At a base level, this was a Mal-centric story. We gain some backstory into his past, on Shadow, just prior to the War. We are also given an inside track to his inner thoughts, allowing us to gain an even deeper understanding of his character, beyond what we learned in the short-lived TV series and subsequent movie SERENITY.
DOCTOR WHO is a hot mess right now, something I am unable to get behind (after being a fan for almost 48 years). Too many changes, good and bad. Fortunately, though, FIREFLY remains the same, untouched, let to continue as the way it was intended, and I am totally fine with that!
If you love FIREFLY as much as I do, you owe it to yourself to pick this one up!
Saffy Alexandra (89 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets in Books
Jun 1, 2019
Characters (3 more)
New plot
Humour, Wit and Sarcasm
Mystery
Ssssomething Special
As with all Harry Potter books I love them, because why wouldnāt you? And the one thing I find is that in the movies they tend to miss some of Rowlingās amazing sarcastic and hilarious scenes and if you are only a lover of the movies you tend to miss so much.
Now I will admit the book and the film absolutely terrified me when I was younger and still gives me a bit of creeps now, even though I do own a snake and love them to bits. Any who ā¦
In this movie we meet new characters, one of which becomes very dear to everyoneās heart ā aka Dobby! We meet the funny little House Elf who manages to wreck havoc in poor Harryās life before he even gets to school with the whole dropping a pudding in the middle of the living room and then blocking 9 and 3 quarters to both Harry and Ron. Hence them then breaking the first law, do not expose Magic to Muggles. Then who could forget Gilderoy Lockhart? The incompetent but very good at memory spells Dark-Arts teacher. And then there is Moaning Myrtle, good old Myrtle.
Harry and Ronās misadventures start right at the beginning of term, causing them to nearly be expelled. Thankfully not, other wise the book series would have been very short. More and more drama ensues to the Trio (Harry, Ron and Hermione) and the rest of the school as the book continues with Harry talking to snakes, Ginny acting strange, and then studentās being petrified including our brilliant Hermione. Itās then up to Harry and Ron to try and solve the mystery. You know, because all those suitably qualified teachers canāt do anything but a twelve year old can?
But what started off with causing everyone to avoid Harry within an inch of his life soon became the reason all the muggle-borns and half-bloodās stayed awake and not petrified. What would they ever do without Harr Potter?
A funny and dramatic second book in this series which grips you straight from the start with Rowlingās brilliant way to use mischief, sarcasm and wit in her writing.
A Favourite scene of mine that is in the books is:
āFred and George, however, found all this very funny. They went out of
their way to march ahead of Harry down the corridors, shouting, "Make way for
the Heir of Slytherin, seriously evil wizard coming through ......
Percy was deeply disapproving of this behavior.
"It is not a laughing matter," he said coldly.
"Oh, get out of the way, Percy," said Fred. "Harry's in a hurry."
"Yeah, he's off to the Chamber of Secrets for a cup of tea with his fanged
servant," said George, chortling.
Ginny didn't find it amusing either.
"Oh, don't," she wailed every time Fred asked Harry loudly who he was
planning to attack next, or when George pretended to ward Harry off with a large
clove of garlic when they met.ā
ā J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Now I will admit the book and the film absolutely terrified me when I was younger and still gives me a bit of creeps now, even though I do own a snake and love them to bits. Any who ā¦
In this movie we meet new characters, one of which becomes very dear to everyoneās heart ā aka Dobby! We meet the funny little House Elf who manages to wreck havoc in poor Harryās life before he even gets to school with the whole dropping a pudding in the middle of the living room and then blocking 9 and 3 quarters to both Harry and Ron. Hence them then breaking the first law, do not expose Magic to Muggles. Then who could forget Gilderoy Lockhart? The incompetent but very good at memory spells Dark-Arts teacher. And then there is Moaning Myrtle, good old Myrtle.
Harry and Ronās misadventures start right at the beginning of term, causing them to nearly be expelled. Thankfully not, other wise the book series would have been very short. More and more drama ensues to the Trio (Harry, Ron and Hermione) and the rest of the school as the book continues with Harry talking to snakes, Ginny acting strange, and then studentās being petrified including our brilliant Hermione. Itās then up to Harry and Ron to try and solve the mystery. You know, because all those suitably qualified teachers canāt do anything but a twelve year old can?
But what started off with causing everyone to avoid Harry within an inch of his life soon became the reason all the muggle-borns and half-bloodās stayed awake and not petrified. What would they ever do without Harr Potter?
A funny and dramatic second book in this series which grips you straight from the start with Rowlingās brilliant way to use mischief, sarcasm and wit in her writing.
A Favourite scene of mine that is in the books is:
āFred and George, however, found all this very funny. They went out of
their way to march ahead of Harry down the corridors, shouting, "Make way for
the Heir of Slytherin, seriously evil wizard coming through ......
Percy was deeply disapproving of this behavior.
"It is not a laughing matter," he said coldly.
"Oh, get out of the way, Percy," said Fred. "Harry's in a hurry."
"Yeah, he's off to the Chamber of Secrets for a cup of tea with his fanged
servant," said George, chortling.
Ginny didn't find it amusing either.
"Oh, don't," she wailed every time Fred asked Harry loudly who he was
planning to attack next, or when George pretended to ward Harry off with a large
clove of garlic when they met.ā
ā J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, BeyoncƩ as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, BeyoncƩ as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Book Of Love (2017) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Book of Love starts when architect Henry Herschel (Sudeikis) loses his pregnant wife Penny (Biel) in a car accident, broken he needs to take time away from work, he notices homeless teenager Millie (Williams) searching for scraps.
When Henry learns what Millie is planning, he decides to jump in and help her with the project to build a raft to sail across the Atlantic, this gives him a new lease for life, to help someone follow their dream.
Thoughts on The Book of Love
Characters ā Henry Herschel is an architect on the verge of a big promotion to partner in the company, and a baby, his life however is turned upside down when his wife is killed in an accident. Filled with grief he meets teenager Millie who he helps with her project, taking his mind off his loss. Millie is a homeless teenager, well she is forced to live with her estranged Uncle and she wants to build a raft like in the journal she finds. She believes she is doing the right thing as she is dealing with own problems. Penny is Henryās wife who even after her death gives him guiding light to help Millie. Julia is the mother-in-law wanting the best for Henry as her own way of dealing with the loss of her daughter.
Performances ā Jason Sudeikis continues to show that he is delightful to watch in these drama-comedy roles, he shows enough grief and hope to make you believe that he has been the one to lose his wife. Maisie Williams is good for the most part, but she does struggle to maintain the accent through the film. Jessica Biel and Mary Steenburgen both give us good performances in the supporting roles.
Story ā The story follows a grief ridden man that decides to help a teenager with her own problems in an attempt to cure his own problems only to there to help cure her problems. This does have sweet moments as we see how the lives have been turned upside down by their own tragic losses and the moments where they can help support each other, we do however deal with grief in a realistic way, being left empty in need of something to keep us going. The glaring problem is the repeating of the facts about people dying, we just donāt need this on repeat to get the point, as we know the focus on the story is, enjoy life however difficult moments have been.
Settings ā The film is set-in small-town America, well the suburbs, which shows us how life can change in an instant in this world no matter who or where you are.
Scene of the Movie ā Closing shot.
That Moment That Annoyed Me ā Maisie Williams accent.
Final Thoughts ā This is a charming movie that gets the message across well, we get to see just how grief can be processed by the people suffering from it.
Overall: One of the dreamers to see where people can make it.
When Henry learns what Millie is planning, he decides to jump in and help her with the project to build a raft to sail across the Atlantic, this gives him a new lease for life, to help someone follow their dream.
Thoughts on The Book of Love
Characters ā Henry Herschel is an architect on the verge of a big promotion to partner in the company, and a baby, his life however is turned upside down when his wife is killed in an accident. Filled with grief he meets teenager Millie who he helps with her project, taking his mind off his loss. Millie is a homeless teenager, well she is forced to live with her estranged Uncle and she wants to build a raft like in the journal she finds. She believes she is doing the right thing as she is dealing with own problems. Penny is Henryās wife who even after her death gives him guiding light to help Millie. Julia is the mother-in-law wanting the best for Henry as her own way of dealing with the loss of her daughter.
Performances ā Jason Sudeikis continues to show that he is delightful to watch in these drama-comedy roles, he shows enough grief and hope to make you believe that he has been the one to lose his wife. Maisie Williams is good for the most part, but she does struggle to maintain the accent through the film. Jessica Biel and Mary Steenburgen both give us good performances in the supporting roles.
Story ā The story follows a grief ridden man that decides to help a teenager with her own problems in an attempt to cure his own problems only to there to help cure her problems. This does have sweet moments as we see how the lives have been turned upside down by their own tragic losses and the moments where they can help support each other, we do however deal with grief in a realistic way, being left empty in need of something to keep us going. The glaring problem is the repeating of the facts about people dying, we just donāt need this on repeat to get the point, as we know the focus on the story is, enjoy life however difficult moments have been.
Settings ā The film is set-in small-town America, well the suburbs, which shows us how life can change in an instant in this world no matter who or where you are.
Scene of the Movie ā Closing shot.
That Moment That Annoyed Me ā Maisie Williams accent.
Final Thoughts ā This is a charming movie that gets the message across well, we get to see just how grief can be processed by the people suffering from it.
Overall: One of the dreamers to see where people can make it.
I first read Dracula as part of a film and fiction course at University: read the book; watch the film. It is, of course, the most famous of all vampire stories.
Unlike the movie version, the story is told from the point of view of the various secondary characters (who are all writing in their diaries or memoirs): Dracula, himself, is never at the forefront. Rather, he is an ominous shadowy presence in the background throughout. This is actually quite effective: by disassociating the reader from the villain, Stoker manages to both convey the deadly mysteriousness of the Count, and side-steps the danger of the reader sympathizing too much with Dracula, while that character is also able to be abroad during the day-time; just not with the powers he has at night.
Finally, and unlike the film version which bears the same name, in the book Dracula is not given the same back-story: Mina, for instance, is never described as being his long-lost love! In this sense, the film is much more of a Gothic love-story than the original source material!
Unlike the movie version, the story is told from the point of view of the various secondary characters (who are all writing in their diaries or memoirs): Dracula, himself, is never at the forefront. Rather, he is an ominous shadowy presence in the background throughout. This is actually quite effective: by disassociating the reader from the villain, Stoker manages to both convey the deadly mysteriousness of the Count, and side-steps the danger of the reader sympathizing too much with Dracula, while that character is also able to be abroad during the day-time; just not with the powers he has at night.
Finally, and unlike the film version which bears the same name, in the book Dracula is not given the same back-story: Mina, for instance, is never described as being his long-lost love! In this sense, the film is much more of a Gothic love-story than the original source material!
Otway93 (580 KP) rated The War of the Worlds in TV
Apr 19, 2020
Casting (1 more)
Special Effects
Story (1 more)
The Martians Reveal
Drawn out, dull, and not worthy of it's own title.
On first hearing about a new adaptation of War of the Worlds set in the original time and place as the book, I was incredible excited, as for some reason it has never been done.
Unfortunately, I, and my entire family were disappointed.
It's quite hard to review this without spoilers, as the main issue here is really the story, which has been so drawn out and distorted from it is no longer the story I know and love, but a show merely "based on" the book.
There are several critical differences in this story and the original story:
- The fates of different characters.
- The addition of pointless characters.
- The slow, intense reveal of the Martian invaders.
Despite these differences, the show could still have been enjoyable if it was not so drawn out. Without all the filler content, the whole thing could easily have been wrapped up into a much better 90 minute TV movie. Instead, the BBC drew it out in to 3 3 hour episodes that could bore the hind AND FRONT legs off a donkey.
Unfortunately, I, and my entire family were disappointed.
It's quite hard to review this without spoilers, as the main issue here is really the story, which has been so drawn out and distorted from it is no longer the story I know and love, but a show merely "based on" the book.
There are several critical differences in this story and the original story:
- The fates of different characters.
- The addition of pointless characters.
- The slow, intense reveal of the Martian invaders.
Despite these differences, the show could still have been enjoyable if it was not so drawn out. Without all the filler content, the whole thing could easily have been wrapped up into a much better 90 minute TV movie. Instead, the BBC drew it out in to 3 3 hour episodes that could bore the hind AND FRONT legs off a donkey.
Classic Era of American Comics
Book
The world has never seen the like of the American comic book. In their heyday, the top 500 comics...
Leigh J (71 KP) rated Death Becomes Her (1992) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
An ageless Black Comedy
Helen is a struggling Writer who has gone with her Fiance, successful Plastic Surgeon Ernest Menville, to see an old friend/enemies Theatrical Show. The friend in question is an aging starlet by the name of Madeleine. Backstage, Madeleine and Ernest have an instant chemistry and despite reassuring Helen otherwise, Ernest and Madeleine eventually get Married; which sents Helen into a spiral of severe depression and overeating.
7 years later... Madeleine is middle aged and in an unhappy Marriage with the now Undertaker Ernest. Things are at an all time low when they recieve an Invitation to Helen's Book Party... the title of her book being "Forever Young". Desperate and in need of some rejuvenation, Madeleine goes to her usual clinic for some anti-aging therapy, and explodes in anger when they have no further options for her. This is when the Boss of the Spa approaches Madeleine and gives her the business card of Lisle Von Rhuman and explains that only a select group of people can consult with this woman. Madeleine brushes the whole incident off... until she sees Helen at the party. Helen is vibrant, more skinny and more beautiful and, shockingly, looks much younger than Madeleine. Madeleine is furious and, upon discovering her young bit on the side is sleeping with a younger woman, pays Lisle Von Rhuman a visit. Who is this mysterious woman and what exactly can she offer to Madeleine as a miracle cure to aging? And could this also be Helen's secret to her youth? Also, what are Helen and Ernest plotting behind Madeleine's back? And what will the disasterous condequences be when they finally confront each other?
I saw Death Becomes Her as a kid and was really taken with it; I loved the mysterious, '40s Starlet ways of Lisle Von Rhuman, I loved how elegant the Movie looks whilst also delivering on the Horror and the (very Black, very tongue in cheek) Comedy. It's so stand apart, I've never ever seen another like Death Becomes Her and it's a Movie I hope is enjoyed for generations to come. It's wonderful.
7 years later... Madeleine is middle aged and in an unhappy Marriage with the now Undertaker Ernest. Things are at an all time low when they recieve an Invitation to Helen's Book Party... the title of her book being "Forever Young". Desperate and in need of some rejuvenation, Madeleine goes to her usual clinic for some anti-aging therapy, and explodes in anger when they have no further options for her. This is when the Boss of the Spa approaches Madeleine and gives her the business card of Lisle Von Rhuman and explains that only a select group of people can consult with this woman. Madeleine brushes the whole incident off... until she sees Helen at the party. Helen is vibrant, more skinny and more beautiful and, shockingly, looks much younger than Madeleine. Madeleine is furious and, upon discovering her young bit on the side is sleeping with a younger woman, pays Lisle Von Rhuman a visit. Who is this mysterious woman and what exactly can she offer to Madeleine as a miracle cure to aging? And could this also be Helen's secret to her youth? Also, what are Helen and Ernest plotting behind Madeleine's back? And what will the disasterous condequences be when they finally confront each other?
I saw Death Becomes Her as a kid and was really taken with it; I loved the mysterious, '40s Starlet ways of Lisle Von Rhuman, I loved how elegant the Movie looks whilst also delivering on the Horror and the (very Black, very tongue in cheek) Comedy. It's so stand apart, I've never ever seen another like Death Becomes Her and it's a Movie I hope is enjoyed for generations to come. It's wonderful.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) Jul 21, 2020