Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Sep 3, 2018
Gemma Chan (1 more)
Constance Wu
OK. I don't do books, so I wouldn't have been aware of the best selling book that Crazy Rich Asians is based on. I don't usually do rom coms either, but that only tends to be the ones where they're the typical boy and girl hate each other and are thrown together until they love each other type movies. But, I do love a movie that's done well, regardless of genre. And as Crazy Rich Asians continues to receive much hype and success in the US (I'm in the UK), I thought I'd better go and see what all the fuss is about. So, as part of date night with the wife, we decided to go check it out!
Now, for this movie I think the trailer nailed it in terms of what you see is what you're going to get. And in my opinion, I'd say how you feel after seeing the trailer for this movie is a pretty good gauge for how you'll feel about the movie as a whole. Personally, I watched the trailer and I didn't think it looked that great. The story looked mildly interesting, there were some funny characters and some potentially great performances, but there was nothing in the trailer that grabbed me and stuck with me. And that's exactly how I felt about the movie after I'd seen it.
The story centres around Rachel and Nick, both living in New York and having been dating for a while. Nick is due to head home to Singapore for his best friends wedding and has asked Rachel to join him. The opening scene of the movie, featuring Nick as a young child, gives us some insight into how much wealth and power his family possess. We also see how an innocent photo of Nick and Rachel talking in a bar quickly hits Singapore social media, setting thousands of tongues wagging and giving us a pretty good idea just how big a deal Nick and his family are over there. And how much of a talking point it is that Nick is dating a girl raised in America, rather than Asia. It's only when they land in Singapore that Rachel realises the full extent of what she's let herself in for.
Nick is part of a big, rich family, with each family member having their own set of problems and insecurities to deal with. I actually had trouble keeping track of who's who for a while, but one thing this movie does do is allow sufficient time for all family members to be explored and for some particularly strong performances to blossom. Nicks mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh) is the one that Rachel is out to impress though, and although she remains polite at all times, it's clear that she doesn't approve. I thought this was going to be a variation of the boy and girl hate each other at first theme that I spoke about earlier, and while it kind of is in a way, it doesn't make for such a fun, easy ride like standard rom coms do.
For me, those strong performances I spoke about came from Gemma Chan as a millionaire cousin with an insecure cheating husband, and Constance Wu as Rachel. Michelle Yeoh is somebody we're probably a bit more familiar with, and she was also outstanding as Nicks mother Eleanor. There are plenty of characters providing comedy relief and bringing the 'crazy' to the films title. Most notably Awkwafina as Rachel’s best friend and Ken Jeong, who seemed slightly subdued for once.
Overall I didn't not enjoy this movie, but then I didn't enjoy it as much as I'd hoped I would either. I laughed, I was entertained, but I felt the movie dragged and stumbled at times, and didn't really elevate itself above just a standard rom com for me.
Now, for this movie I think the trailer nailed it in terms of what you see is what you're going to get. And in my opinion, I'd say how you feel after seeing the trailer for this movie is a pretty good gauge for how you'll feel about the movie as a whole. Personally, I watched the trailer and I didn't think it looked that great. The story looked mildly interesting, there were some funny characters and some potentially great performances, but there was nothing in the trailer that grabbed me and stuck with me. And that's exactly how I felt about the movie after I'd seen it.
The story centres around Rachel and Nick, both living in New York and having been dating for a while. Nick is due to head home to Singapore for his best friends wedding and has asked Rachel to join him. The opening scene of the movie, featuring Nick as a young child, gives us some insight into how much wealth and power his family possess. We also see how an innocent photo of Nick and Rachel talking in a bar quickly hits Singapore social media, setting thousands of tongues wagging and giving us a pretty good idea just how big a deal Nick and his family are over there. And how much of a talking point it is that Nick is dating a girl raised in America, rather than Asia. It's only when they land in Singapore that Rachel realises the full extent of what she's let herself in for.
Nick is part of a big, rich family, with each family member having their own set of problems and insecurities to deal with. I actually had trouble keeping track of who's who for a while, but one thing this movie does do is allow sufficient time for all family members to be explored and for some particularly strong performances to blossom. Nicks mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh) is the one that Rachel is out to impress though, and although she remains polite at all times, it's clear that she doesn't approve. I thought this was going to be a variation of the boy and girl hate each other at first theme that I spoke about earlier, and while it kind of is in a way, it doesn't make for such a fun, easy ride like standard rom coms do.
For me, those strong performances I spoke about came from Gemma Chan as a millionaire cousin with an insecure cheating husband, and Constance Wu as Rachel. Michelle Yeoh is somebody we're probably a bit more familiar with, and she was also outstanding as Nicks mother Eleanor. There are plenty of characters providing comedy relief and bringing the 'crazy' to the films title. Most notably Awkwafina as Rachel’s best friend and Ken Jeong, who seemed slightly subdued for once.
Overall I didn't not enjoy this movie, but then I didn't enjoy it as much as I'd hoped I would either. I laughed, I was entertained, but I felt the movie dragged and stumbled at times, and didn't really elevate itself above just a standard rom com for me.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The Lord of the Rings in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Lord of the rings is written by professor J. R. R. Tolkien and began as a squeal to the Hobbit but evolved over time into its own stand alone book. It was Published by Allen and Unwin (who also produced the hobbit) on July 29th 1954 in three segments; The Fellowship of the Ring, The Towers and The Return of the King. Structurally the book can be separated into six books with an appendices at the end. The book was intended to be one volume of a two volume set (Partnered with The Silmarillion). The title refers to the main antagonist the dark lord Sauron, who had in an earlier age created the one ring to rule them all and use it to conquer and rule Middle-Earth. The story starts in the shire at the 11th birthday of Bilbo Baggins and follows the journey of Frodo Baggins – Bilbos relative and heir as he ranges across middle-earth all the way to the fires of mount doom to destroy the magical ring (which Bilbo found during the Hobbit) during what ended up as the War of the Ring. The story is seen through the eyes of several characters including Frodo, and fellow Hobbits Sam Gamgee, Merry Brandybuck and Pippin Took.
Now I own a copy of the lord of the rings and have done so since I've left school. The copy I own however is the single whole copy as such I've always struggled to read the book in one go. Its always taken me a long time to read it and as such I only re-read it every two years or so. Whilst I'd known of the hobbit and read it numerous times as a child and young adult. I wasn't aware of the Lord of the Rings until the movies came out and as such I came to LoTR through the movies instead of the book. If you want to know a brief history of Professor J.R.R Tolkien and my opinion of him have a look to last weeks book blog on The Hobbit.
The book was turned into the popular movie franchise by Director Peter Jackson, Weta Workshop and New Line Cinema. The movies followed the pattern of the books and were subsequently released under The fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Two Towers (2002) and The return of the King (2003). Lord of the rings is widely regarded as one of the most influential and greatest film trilogies ever created. Its ended up being both a major financial success and is amongst the highest grossing film series of all time (earning over £2.9 billion in worldwide receipts). When award season came around each film was critically acclaimed and heavily awarded they won 17 out of their 30 nominations. An extended copy of each movie was released on DVD after the theatrical release.....I still have my extended copies after 13 years.
I was introduced to the Lord of the Rings Movies during Secondary school and had spent a good chunk of my time out of school watching the movies. By the time I left school a knew a plethora of random knowledge of the Tolkien legendium at large and as I said earlier in this post I saw the movies first before I read the books and as such It does make it harder for me to read the books. Thanks to these movies however I now own several LoTR related books and have a healthy love of Fantasy and fiction at large.
Now I own a copy of the lord of the rings and have done so since I've left school. The copy I own however is the single whole copy as such I've always struggled to read the book in one go. Its always taken me a long time to read it and as such I only re-read it every two years or so. Whilst I'd known of the hobbit and read it numerous times as a child and young adult. I wasn't aware of the Lord of the Rings until the movies came out and as such I came to LoTR through the movies instead of the book. If you want to know a brief history of Professor J.R.R Tolkien and my opinion of him have a look to last weeks book blog on The Hobbit.
The book was turned into the popular movie franchise by Director Peter Jackson, Weta Workshop and New Line Cinema. The movies followed the pattern of the books and were subsequently released under The fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Two Towers (2002) and The return of the King (2003). Lord of the rings is widely regarded as one of the most influential and greatest film trilogies ever created. Its ended up being both a major financial success and is amongst the highest grossing film series of all time (earning over £2.9 billion in worldwide receipts). When award season came around each film was critically acclaimed and heavily awarded they won 17 out of their 30 nominations. An extended copy of each movie was released on DVD after the theatrical release.....I still have my extended copies after 13 years.
I was introduced to the Lord of the Rings Movies during Secondary school and had spent a good chunk of my time out of school watching the movies. By the time I left school a knew a plethora of random knowledge of the Tolkien legendium at large and as I said earlier in this post I saw the movies first before I read the books and as such It does make it harder for me to read the books. Thanks to these movies however I now own several LoTR related books and have a healthy love of Fantasy and fiction at large.
Bret Easton Ellis recommended Barry Lyndon (1975) in Movies (curated)
David McK (3562 KP) rated The Ultimates, Volume 1: Super-Human in Books
Jan 28, 2019
I only picked this up recently out of curiosity when Marvel started doing a hard-backed comic-book collection, to see what it would be like.
Now I've read it, I have to say: I wasn't really that impressed by this. Written pre Joss-Whedon's Avengers movie (and even pre the Marvel Cinematic Universe), I found pretty much all of the characters within to be unlikeable and uninteresting: while you can get away with the former, the latter, however, is a major flaw (IMO) in any story.
I don't know whether that's because I associate the characters more with their big-screen counter-parts than with how they are presented here (both of which, incidentally, are designed to show how the team comes together), with Hank Pym, in particular, coming across as a bit of a jerk while Betty Ross (Bruce Banner's girlfriend) also comes across as, well, just not that pleasant at all.
On the plus side, I did like the (somewhat meta) panels where they were all discussing who would play themselves in the Hollywood adaptation ...
I also noticed that, unlike their movie counterparts, they are able to use the term 'mutants': a term which, I believe, Marvel are unable to use on the big (or small) screen as it is licensed to Fox instead .
Now I've read it, I have to say: I wasn't really that impressed by this. Written pre Joss-Whedon's Avengers movie (and even pre the Marvel Cinematic Universe), I found pretty much all of the characters within to be unlikeable and uninteresting: while you can get away with the former, the latter, however, is a major flaw (IMO) in any story.
I don't know whether that's because I associate the characters more with their big-screen counter-parts than with how they are presented here (both of which, incidentally, are designed to show how the team comes together), with Hank Pym, in particular, coming across as a bit of a jerk while Betty Ross (Bruce Banner's girlfriend) also comes across as, well, just not that pleasant at all.
On the plus side, I did like the (somewhat meta) panels where they were all discussing who would play themselves in the Hollywood adaptation ...
I also noticed that, unlike their movie counterparts, they are able to use the term 'mutants': a term which, I believe, Marvel are unable to use on the big (or small) screen as it is licensed to Fox instead .
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The LEGO Movie (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Could The LEGO Movie just be considered one hour and a half long commercial for a children’s toy product? Absolutely. Does that make the movie any less entertaining? Nope! I grew up in the eighties. A time when toy manufacturers would make TV shows, mixing up entertainment with advertising in the tender minds of their youth demographic, and doing it well. We seem to be in a new age of that very same ethos of ultra-marketing, only now we have the internet to exacerbate the matter. That all said, The LEGO Movie is perhaps one of the cleverest, funniest, and perhaps most creative films I’ve seen in a long while. It’s enjoyable, fresh, and seems to celebrate with reckless abandon the joyous chaos of childhood play over the blind consumption of product.
The comforting, self-aware, almost self-deprecating tone that has found its way into the LEGO videogames that have been hitting the markets lately that defines The LEGO Movie. The film takes place in a world made of LEGOs, and the characters all have snap-on/snap-off hair and can merrily disassemble the world around them and build again from the ruins. And while it’s not filmed in stop-motion (which was more disappointing than I thought it would be), the characters have the pleasantly stiff and jerky movement that is the trademark to the style. It’s essentially a film with the rules of a young boy at play, just making it up as things progress.
Even the story felt like it was straight from a children’s book. An average, run-of-the-mill, Joe… well, Emmet (Chris Pratt) falls unsuspectingly into an adventure involving freedom fighters, superheroes, and villains in a very Matrix-esque plot. When he stumbles upon the legendary Piece of Resistance, the only force that can undo the Kragle, a mysterious weapon being used by Lord Business/President Business (Will Ferrell), Emmet begins his journey to fulfill the prophecy and become the best “master builder” in all the world. Along the way he is helped by a plethora of recognizable, and not so recognizable, characters including Batman (Will Arnett), Shaquille O’Neil (Himself), Vitruvious (Morgan Freeman) and Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks).
Most children’s films these days, especially in the CGI genre, tend to be lighting fast paced, basically overloading you with unfunny material hoping to distract your from how lame the movie really is. While The LEGO Movie is frantic, it feels like controlled chaos. It has a point. There is a direction where all this weird wild silliness is headed. And while The LEGO Movie would be fine were it just a frantic and clever child’s comedy, it additionally bothers to reach beyond its bounds and address its own artificiality in a plot twist that was way more clever, daring and meaningful than anything seen in most modern adult thrillers. But I don’t want to spoil that for you.
So here it is again, my “Would I buy it” test. Absolutely. The LEGO Movie is great fun and a joyous celebration of the chaos I recall as childhood.
The comforting, self-aware, almost self-deprecating tone that has found its way into the LEGO videogames that have been hitting the markets lately that defines The LEGO Movie. The film takes place in a world made of LEGOs, and the characters all have snap-on/snap-off hair and can merrily disassemble the world around them and build again from the ruins. And while it’s not filmed in stop-motion (which was more disappointing than I thought it would be), the characters have the pleasantly stiff and jerky movement that is the trademark to the style. It’s essentially a film with the rules of a young boy at play, just making it up as things progress.
Even the story felt like it was straight from a children’s book. An average, run-of-the-mill, Joe… well, Emmet (Chris Pratt) falls unsuspectingly into an adventure involving freedom fighters, superheroes, and villains in a very Matrix-esque plot. When he stumbles upon the legendary Piece of Resistance, the only force that can undo the Kragle, a mysterious weapon being used by Lord Business/President Business (Will Ferrell), Emmet begins his journey to fulfill the prophecy and become the best “master builder” in all the world. Along the way he is helped by a plethora of recognizable, and not so recognizable, characters including Batman (Will Arnett), Shaquille O’Neil (Himself), Vitruvious (Morgan Freeman) and Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks).
Most children’s films these days, especially in the CGI genre, tend to be lighting fast paced, basically overloading you with unfunny material hoping to distract your from how lame the movie really is. While The LEGO Movie is frantic, it feels like controlled chaos. It has a point. There is a direction where all this weird wild silliness is headed. And while The LEGO Movie would be fine were it just a frantic and clever child’s comedy, it additionally bothers to reach beyond its bounds and address its own artificiality in a plot twist that was way more clever, daring and meaningful than anything seen in most modern adult thrillers. But I don’t want to spoil that for you.
So here it is again, my “Would I buy it” test. Absolutely. The LEGO Movie is great fun and a joyous celebration of the chaos I recall as childhood.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Apr 17, 2019 (Updated Apr 17, 2019)
The script (4 more)
The CGI
The editing
The performances
Everything else
Actual Hell
If the Hellboy 2019 movie has one thing going for it, it's that it's impressive. It is impressive in the sense that it actually made me question the futility of time and why I was wasting my short time on this earth watching this atrocious piece of trash. There were several times when I was watching the film that I actually couldn't bring myself to believe how bad what I was witnessing onscreen really was. This might be the worst film I have ever seen.
It has without a doubt taken the crown of the worst superhero movie ever made from Fan4stic and is downright insulting. I cannot believe that they chose to make this dogshit over another one with Ron Perlman and Del Toro. Almost every single aspect of this movie is garbage and there are hardly any redeeming features.
Let's talk about the main character, this movie's version of Hellboy. We all knew going in that David Harbour had some pretty big shoes to fill left by Perlman and in Harbour's defence, pretty much the only slightly positive aspect of this thing is the fact that you can tell that Harbour is doing the very best with the piss poor material he has been given to work with. Most of his lines are awful and the way that his character is written as a moaning, whiny bitch is actually insulting to the character. Also, the excessive makeup he is wearing means that he is hardly able to emote with his mouth. When he is talking, his mouth simply opens and closes like a puppet and it is painfully obvious that the dialogue has been dubbed in later and it's not even been done very well. The other slight positive in this movie is seeing Hellboy in his full demonic getup with long horns and donning the flaming crown and sword was pretty cool, unfortunately this is only a fleeting glimpse of coolness before we get right back to the crap.
The other memorable part of the Del Toro Hellboy movies was the endearing supporting cast, unfortunately they have been substituted with an insufferable lot of replacements. The actress playing Alice may give the worst performance that I have ever seen in a comic book movie, (and I saw Polar!) Every single line that she uttered was extremely cringe-worthy and poorly delivered. Daniel Dae Kim was almost as bad as Hellboy's other sidekick. Again, a lot of his lines were ADR'd in later and it is really shoddily done. Ian McShane plays Broom, the scientist that found Hellboy and adopted him and he is sleepwalking his way through this role for the sake of an easy paycheck. As is Milla Jovovich, she plays a stereotypical villainous witch and she does nothing here that we haven't seen her do before in other movies.
Over my years of watching almost every comic book movie that releases, I have seen my fair share of cheap, cartoony looking CGI, but this takes the cake. Almost every scene in the movie features some kind of CGI creature and they are all on a similar level of quality to an unfinished student project. One of the moments it really stood out was the giant fight, where we were subjected to not only one bad CGI giant, but three of them. The scene is also shot in broad daylight, which really does the bad CGI no favours. Not once, did anything in this movie look better than anything in the Del Toro movies which came out 10+ years ago.
I'm going to spoil something here, because seriously who gives a fuck at this point? The absolute worst part of CGI though in the entire movie, is undoubtedly during one of the final scenes in the movie where Ian McShane comes back to speak to Hellboy as a ghost. The CG in this scene is genuinely on par with the Rock's CG in in the Scorpion King. Yes, it really is that bad.
The soundtrack is so misused here also. The songs themselves that are featured are all half decent songs, but they do not work in the context of this film and they add absolutely nothing to the scenes that they are used in. The editing is also horrible, there were several times that I was reminded of the cheap editing in shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
The last thing that I want to talk about is the tone and humour, (or lack of,) present throughout the film. The movie opens with a flashback scene showing King Arthur chopping up the witch. The scene is being narrated by Ian McShane and it is chock-full of diabolically awful dialogue and insufferably cheesy line delivery. Whilst watching it I thought, "Oh they are really hamming it up here and going for a really corny tone for these flashback scenes." I then swiftly came to the soul-crushing conclusion that no, this was how the next 2 hours of this movie was going to go. The awful sense of humour is actually comparable to that in a poor quality kids film, with gross out burp and kiss jokes to boot. What happened to the darker, more horror orientated tone that we were teased with when the movie was in pre-production? Any semblance of that is sorely lacking here and it is a shame because I would have quite liked to have seen that movie and there is a good chance that it would have been a lot better than this dumpster fire.
Overall, please don't see this unless you hate yourself. It is two hours of your life that would be better spent doing literally anything else. At the end it has the audacity to tease a sequel which, (if there is a God,) will never happen.
It has without a doubt taken the crown of the worst superhero movie ever made from Fan4stic and is downright insulting. I cannot believe that they chose to make this dogshit over another one with Ron Perlman and Del Toro. Almost every single aspect of this movie is garbage and there are hardly any redeeming features.
Let's talk about the main character, this movie's version of Hellboy. We all knew going in that David Harbour had some pretty big shoes to fill left by Perlman and in Harbour's defence, pretty much the only slightly positive aspect of this thing is the fact that you can tell that Harbour is doing the very best with the piss poor material he has been given to work with. Most of his lines are awful and the way that his character is written as a moaning, whiny bitch is actually insulting to the character. Also, the excessive makeup he is wearing means that he is hardly able to emote with his mouth. When he is talking, his mouth simply opens and closes like a puppet and it is painfully obvious that the dialogue has been dubbed in later and it's not even been done very well. The other slight positive in this movie is seeing Hellboy in his full demonic getup with long horns and donning the flaming crown and sword was pretty cool, unfortunately this is only a fleeting glimpse of coolness before we get right back to the crap.
The other memorable part of the Del Toro Hellboy movies was the endearing supporting cast, unfortunately they have been substituted with an insufferable lot of replacements. The actress playing Alice may give the worst performance that I have ever seen in a comic book movie, (and I saw Polar!) Every single line that she uttered was extremely cringe-worthy and poorly delivered. Daniel Dae Kim was almost as bad as Hellboy's other sidekick. Again, a lot of his lines were ADR'd in later and it is really shoddily done. Ian McShane plays Broom, the scientist that found Hellboy and adopted him and he is sleepwalking his way through this role for the sake of an easy paycheck. As is Milla Jovovich, she plays a stereotypical villainous witch and she does nothing here that we haven't seen her do before in other movies.
Over my years of watching almost every comic book movie that releases, I have seen my fair share of cheap, cartoony looking CGI, but this takes the cake. Almost every scene in the movie features some kind of CGI creature and they are all on a similar level of quality to an unfinished student project. One of the moments it really stood out was the giant fight, where we were subjected to not only one bad CGI giant, but three of them. The scene is also shot in broad daylight, which really does the bad CGI no favours. Not once, did anything in this movie look better than anything in the Del Toro movies which came out 10+ years ago.
I'm going to spoil something here, because seriously who gives a fuck at this point? The absolute worst part of CGI though in the entire movie, is undoubtedly during one of the final scenes in the movie where Ian McShane comes back to speak to Hellboy as a ghost. The CG in this scene is genuinely on par with the Rock's CG in in the Scorpion King. Yes, it really is that bad.
The soundtrack is so misused here also. The songs themselves that are featured are all half decent songs, but they do not work in the context of this film and they add absolutely nothing to the scenes that they are used in. The editing is also horrible, there were several times that I was reminded of the cheap editing in shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
The last thing that I want to talk about is the tone and humour, (or lack of,) present throughout the film. The movie opens with a flashback scene showing King Arthur chopping up the witch. The scene is being narrated by Ian McShane and it is chock-full of diabolically awful dialogue and insufferably cheesy line delivery. Whilst watching it I thought, "Oh they are really hamming it up here and going for a really corny tone for these flashback scenes." I then swiftly came to the soul-crushing conclusion that no, this was how the next 2 hours of this movie was going to go. The awful sense of humour is actually comparable to that in a poor quality kids film, with gross out burp and kiss jokes to boot. What happened to the darker, more horror orientated tone that we were teased with when the movie was in pre-production? Any semblance of that is sorely lacking here and it is a shame because I would have quite liked to have seen that movie and there is a good chance that it would have been a lot better than this dumpster fire.
Overall, please don't see this unless you hate yourself. It is two hours of your life that would be better spent doing literally anything else. At the end it has the audacity to tease a sequel which, (if there is a God,) will never happen.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Book of Eli (2010) in Movies
Jun 15, 2020
Whisper Whisper Whisper
The Book of Eli- is a good post apocalyptic movie. The only problem most of the movie is whispering from all of the character's. So i had no idea what the charcter were saying. Probley should of watched it with subtitles. The problem is i dont have the dvd. So i would have to watch it again once the libary's open. In the meantime, i love post apocalyptic movies and settings and this one was good. I love denzel's character. It has good action. And Gary oldman was good as the villian.
The plot: Thirty years after war turned the world into a wasteland, a lone warrior named Eli (Denzel Washington) marches across the ruined landscape, carrying hope for humanity's redemption. Only one other man (Gary Oldman) understands the power of what Eli carries, and he is determined to take it for himself. Though Eli prefers peace, he will risk death to protect his precious cargo, for he must fulfill his destiny to help restore mankind.
I suggest if you watch it, watch it with subtitles. Cause its mostly whispering.
The plot: Thirty years after war turned the world into a wasteland, a lone warrior named Eli (Denzel Washington) marches across the ruined landscape, carrying hope for humanity's redemption. Only one other man (Gary Oldman) understands the power of what Eli carries, and he is determined to take it for himself. Though Eli prefers peace, he will risk death to protect his precious cargo, for he must fulfill his destiny to help restore mankind.
I suggest if you watch it, watch it with subtitles. Cause its mostly whispering.
Sean Farrell (9 KP) rated The Martian in Books
Mar 15, 2018
The idea of being stranded alone somewhere is certainly a terrifying one, and as such has been used countless times in literature (and film). Moving the location 140,000,000 miles from Earth adds a new twist to the tale though, and adds an increased sense of desperation. When astronaut Mark Watney finds himself trapped on Mars after an accident, he turns out to be more resilient and resourceful than many of us would, and goes about doing everything he can to ensure his survival and up his odds of rescue. Given that rescue is so far away, and the harsh Martian environment is so unforgiving, things don't always go his way. The series of setbacks he experiences keeps readers in suspense throughout the entire book. The story is told largely from the perspective of Mark dictating to his log, which gives it a casual tone, making Mark very likable, and keeping the technical bits easy to understand. As such, this is a fun read, that kept me on the edge of my seat. If the movie is anywhere near as good as the book, it should be one of the best of the year.
Drone Age Cinema: Action Film and Sensory Assault
Book
At a time when technological advances are transforming cultures and supporting new automated...
Kung Fu Panda 2 Interactive Cookbook
Food & Drink and Lifestyle
App
★★★★★ As featured on CNBC, CNET and many more ★★★★★ Check out the YouTube...