Search
Search results
Sherlock Holmes Collection Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Book and Entertainment
6.0
Rate It
App
Be sure to see ratings and reviews for ALL versions. 48 original Sherlock Holmes Stories by Sir...
The 15:17 To Paris (2018)
6.2
Rate It
Movie Watch
From Clint Eastwood comes “The 15:17 to Paris,” which tells the real-life story of three men...
Brian Fallon recommended track The Promise by Bruce Springsteen in The Promise by Bruce Springsteen in Music (curated)
7.8
Album
Favorite
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Frank Miller's Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
I think that I actually prefer A Dame to Kill For over the first Sin City...
Once again, it's a visual feast, and once again, has a damn fine cast.
Two of the stories here are (unless I'm mistaken) written for this film, rather than being adapted. One of them concentrates on Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his incredible luck at gambling. This story serves as nothing more than to further highlight just how much of an asshole Senator Rourke (Powers Boothe) is, once again, acting as the films main big bad. It's effective enough and does what it sets out to do. The other story concentrates on Nancy (Jessica Alba) torn up and struggling with alcohol after what Rourke did to Hartigan (Bruce Willis) in the first movie, before enlisting the help of Marv (Mickey Rourke) to exact revenge. This one is a little more high stakes. By this point, you really want Rourke to face some really unfriendly justice, and it's fitting that Nancy be the one to dish it out.
However, the titular story is what holds everything together.
A Dame to Kill For, which is indeed adapted from the comics is fantastic. It takes up the majority of runtime, and follows pre Clive Owen looking Dwight (Josh Brolin) going toe to toe with the seductively powerful and dangerous Ava (Eva Green). Here is where we're in full blown prequel territory, learning how Dwight comes to look how he does in the original, his connections the the girls of Old Town, and how Manute (Dennis Haysbert) ends up with his fetching golden eyeball. The best character interactions happen here. Green and Brolin are both great, and easily steal the show. It also boasts some great action when Gail (Rosario Dawson) and Miho (Jamie Chung) return to fuck shit up, and is just an all round enjoyable segment that easily dwarfs the other two stories.
The cast also includes Ray Liota, Christopher Meloni, Jaime King, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Lloyd, Juno Temple, Julia Garner, and Lady Gaga, so yeah, pretty solid ensemble all in all!
Its a damn shame that ADTKF took as long as it did to materialise. The Sin City hype train had gone a bit quiet by the time it released, and it didn't get the credit it deserves, and is frequently discarded as an inferior film to it's predecessor when personally, I think there's a lot to love.
Once again, it's a visual feast, and once again, has a damn fine cast.
Two of the stories here are (unless I'm mistaken) written for this film, rather than being adapted. One of them concentrates on Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his incredible luck at gambling. This story serves as nothing more than to further highlight just how much of an asshole Senator Rourke (Powers Boothe) is, once again, acting as the films main big bad. It's effective enough and does what it sets out to do. The other story concentrates on Nancy (Jessica Alba) torn up and struggling with alcohol after what Rourke did to Hartigan (Bruce Willis) in the first movie, before enlisting the help of Marv (Mickey Rourke) to exact revenge. This one is a little more high stakes. By this point, you really want Rourke to face some really unfriendly justice, and it's fitting that Nancy be the one to dish it out.
However, the titular story is what holds everything together.
A Dame to Kill For, which is indeed adapted from the comics is fantastic. It takes up the majority of runtime, and follows pre Clive Owen looking Dwight (Josh Brolin) going toe to toe with the seductively powerful and dangerous Ava (Eva Green). Here is where we're in full blown prequel territory, learning how Dwight comes to look how he does in the original, his connections the the girls of Old Town, and how Manute (Dennis Haysbert) ends up with his fetching golden eyeball. The best character interactions happen here. Green and Brolin are both great, and easily steal the show. It also boasts some great action when Gail (Rosario Dawson) and Miho (Jamie Chung) return to fuck shit up, and is just an all round enjoyable segment that easily dwarfs the other two stories.
The cast also includes Ray Liota, Christopher Meloni, Jaime King, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Lloyd, Juno Temple, Julia Garner, and Lady Gaga, so yeah, pretty solid ensemble all in all!
Its a damn shame that ADTKF took as long as it did to materialise. The Sin City hype train had gone a bit quiet by the time it released, and it didn't get the credit it deserves, and is frequently discarded as an inferior film to it's predecessor when personally, I think there's a lot to love.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 16, 2020
Gal Gadot: stunning (2 more)
Movie with real heart
Excellent cinematography
WW dot Well Worth Waiting for Gadot
The long delayed release of the Wonder Woman sequel has finally happened, and it is well worth waiting for.
Gal Gadot is fabulous as the Amazonian beauty (and then some) with Chris Pine reprising his role from the first thing. (Of all the WTF moments of 2020 trailers, this was top of the list.... just HOW? A McGuffin is involved, but no spoilers here!).
In brief, Patty Jenkins delivers a popcorn blockbuster than has legs (over and above Gadot's perfect specimens!): the Goblet-of-Fire-Potteresque pre-title sequence is thrilling and engaging. And the story builds cleverly through the first half of the movie. Above all, there is a heap of HEART involved here.... this is not your run of the mill supervillain showdown flick. In fact, it's a movie with TWO villain (normally a doom-laden premise for this reviewer... "Spider Man 3".... shudder), but here it really works well.
Sure, there is a requirement for a suspension of belief, but - hey - it's a DC movie. On a slight downside, the second half of the movie - for me -unfortunately doesn't quite live up to the promise of first half, blending "Bruce Almighty" with "Superman 2" and rather over-egging the pudding.
But in a morass of B-pics, this sequel is one that is gorgeous to look at (Matthew Jensen's cinematography is superb), gorgeous to listen to (an epic score by Hans Zimmer) and is genuinely engaging. There's also a nice vein of humour running through it... when Kristen Wiig is in a park, a rough sleeper on a bench is reading "Waiting for Godot".... or is it "Waiting for Gadot"??
It's such a brief scene, I wasn't sure!
Although I DEPLORE the Warner Brother's decision to release their material in parallel to streaming, here is a movie that is WELL WORTH you getting out to the cinema to see... assuming that you can find a UK cinema open (I saw this in the excellent Showcase De Luxe in Southampton).
Oh, and if you are someone who dives for the exit at the first title... resist... there is an excellent mid-title sequence featuring a wonderful cameo for us older folks!
(Please check out the full graphical review on bob-the-movie-man, which will be going live shortly. Thanks).
Gal Gadot is fabulous as the Amazonian beauty (and then some) with Chris Pine reprising his role from the first thing. (Of all the WTF moments of 2020 trailers, this was top of the list.... just HOW? A McGuffin is involved, but no spoilers here!).
In brief, Patty Jenkins delivers a popcorn blockbuster than has legs (over and above Gadot's perfect specimens!): the Goblet-of-Fire-Potteresque pre-title sequence is thrilling and engaging. And the story builds cleverly through the first half of the movie. Above all, there is a heap of HEART involved here.... this is not your run of the mill supervillain showdown flick. In fact, it's a movie with TWO villain (normally a doom-laden premise for this reviewer... "Spider Man 3".... shudder), but here it really works well.
Sure, there is a requirement for a suspension of belief, but - hey - it's a DC movie. On a slight downside, the second half of the movie - for me -unfortunately doesn't quite live up to the promise of first half, blending "Bruce Almighty" with "Superman 2" and rather over-egging the pudding.
But in a morass of B-pics, this sequel is one that is gorgeous to look at (Matthew Jensen's cinematography is superb), gorgeous to listen to (an epic score by Hans Zimmer) and is genuinely engaging. There's also a nice vein of humour running through it... when Kristen Wiig is in a park, a rough sleeper on a bench is reading "Waiting for Godot".... or is it "Waiting for Gadot"??
It's such a brief scene, I wasn't sure!
Although I DEPLORE the Warner Brother's decision to release their material in parallel to streaming, here is a movie that is WELL WORTH you getting out to the cinema to see... assuming that you can find a UK cinema open (I saw this in the excellent Showcase De Luxe in Southampton).
Oh, and if you are someone who dives for the exit at the first title... resist... there is an excellent mid-title sequence featuring a wonderful cameo for us older folks!
(Please check out the full graphical review on bob-the-movie-man, which will be going live shortly. Thanks).
Flapper: A Madcap Story of Sex, Style, Celebrity, and the Women Who Made America Modern
5.0
Rate It
Book
Blithely flinging aside the Victorian manners that kept her disapproving mother corseted, the New...
1920s
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated I, Robot (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Tales of a dark and foreboding future where technology has run amuck have been cautioning viewers ever since Orwell made the phrase “Big Brother” a household expression. Other films such as ?”, “Westworld”, “Blade Runner” and “The Terminator” often show a dark and dangerous future where dependence upon technology created to serve mankind has lead to its eventual downfall.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
You will never be too old to read a Roald Dahl book!
I really enjoyed this book, it was funny but also sad at times.
Matilda is a young girl of 5 who is ignored and not really wanted by her family, she is very different from them, her father a used car salesman and a dodgy one at that, a mum who plays bingo, self obsessed and dishes up microwavable meals. Matilda has a thirst for knowledge and unknown to her parents she takes herself to the local library and teaches herself to read. Once she has devoured the children’s section she starts on adult books. At 5 years old Matilda has read probably more fiction than most adults.
She is finally sent to school and befriends Lavender and also captivates the heart of her teacher Miss Honey, however school is not all rosy as Matilda was hoping, there is a nasty headteacher called Miss Trunchball, an ex-olympian for the hammer throw, she has a low tolerance for children and practices with some of them.
Me and my daughter both thoroughly enjoyed this book and the favorite scene has to be with Bruce Bogtrotter and the chocolate cake. I love with Roald Dahl books is that the horrible characters i.e Miss Truchball get their comeuppence. The relationship between Miss Honey and Matilda is so lovely, they have such great outlooks on life even though they have been treated fairly poorly as children. Miss Honey is a very gentle character with a lot of love to give, as soon as she realises that Matilda is a gifted child she wants to help her with her studies and get her the level of education that she requires.
The only thing that let this book down was near the end when she is able to use her powers and the fact that her parents are leaving, it didn’t explain why they were leaving and her use of powers was very rushed.
I would have to say on this instance that I do find the movie adaptation to be better than the book, I think it is explained better and not as rushed, however saying that, in the book I found it interesting to read how she felt when using her powers. My Daughter who is 8 really enjoyed this book, she really enjoyed Miss Trunchball and as there is a lot of dialogue in the book, she was reading aloud with a nasty voice.
I really enjoyed this book, it was funny but also sad at times.
Matilda is a young girl of 5 who is ignored and not really wanted by her family, she is very different from them, her father a used car salesman and a dodgy one at that, a mum who plays bingo, self obsessed and dishes up microwavable meals. Matilda has a thirst for knowledge and unknown to her parents she takes herself to the local library and teaches herself to read. Once she has devoured the children’s section she starts on adult books. At 5 years old Matilda has read probably more fiction than most adults.
She is finally sent to school and befriends Lavender and also captivates the heart of her teacher Miss Honey, however school is not all rosy as Matilda was hoping, there is a nasty headteacher called Miss Trunchball, an ex-olympian for the hammer throw, she has a low tolerance for children and practices with some of them.
Me and my daughter both thoroughly enjoyed this book and the favorite scene has to be with Bruce Bogtrotter and the chocolate cake. I love with Roald Dahl books is that the horrible characters i.e Miss Truchball get their comeuppence. The relationship between Miss Honey and Matilda is so lovely, they have such great outlooks on life even though they have been treated fairly poorly as children. Miss Honey is a very gentle character with a lot of love to give, as soon as she realises that Matilda is a gifted child she wants to help her with her studies and get her the level of education that she requires.
The only thing that let this book down was near the end when she is able to use her powers and the fact that her parents are leaving, it didn’t explain why they were leaving and her use of powers was very rushed.
I would have to say on this instance that I do find the movie adaptation to be better than the book, I think it is explained better and not as rushed, however saying that, in the book I found it interesting to read how she felt when using her powers. My Daughter who is 8 really enjoyed this book, she really enjoyed Miss Trunchball and as there is a lot of dialogue in the book, she was reading aloud with a nasty voice.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
Please stop now
Contains spoilers, click to show
Where to begin...
Fallen Kingdom is full to the brim with stupid.
It sort of imitates The Lost World - first half set on an island, second half set within human population - but it just falls on its face, especially in that second half.
We have a typical evil guy, with a ludicrous plan to use dinosaurs in modern war scenarios (again - for some absurd reason), we have a new "crazy" hybrid lab created dinosaur on the rampage (again!), And to top it all off, the writers decided to throw in a side plot about a little girl who actually a clone? What? Why?
There's also a bit with a velociraptor diving through a window, away from an explosion, like a dinosaur John McClane - we are so far away from the first movie now, is there any point in carrying on?
The first half of the film fairs slightly better, (the opening scene is a highlight for me) and the CGI is pretty solid throughout, but as soon as they leave the island, it's nosedives in spectacular fashion.
Bruce Dallas-Howard and Chris Pratt - again, both fine actors, bit here they are just there, not really adding or taking away from the whole experience.
And just like Jurassic World, it's full of silly plot points that I try not to think too hard about, bit in the end can't help myself such as:
Why is Claire not incarcerated for the events of the first film - she's definitely responsible for a lot of civilians being mailed by rampant dinosaurs.
How does the old guy have absolutely no idea that there is a massive lab/dinosaur prison below his house.
How did they get the T-Rex onto the boat into containment in the few minutes between the main characters jumping into the ocean to getting to the boat themselves?
Why does the Indoraptor happily eat everyone in sight, but then sneak up on the little girl... It's a kind of cool shit but still.
When the film reaches it's conclusion with dinosaurs roaming our everyday lives, you realise that most of the trailer is in the last minute of the film, and this was maybe all filler to reach the inevitable sequel, but to be honest, my interest is low at this point.
On a final note, I love Jeff Goldblum but what was the point of his appearance here? He literally says the name of the film out loud, and that's it. Jesus.
Fallen Kingdom is full to the brim with stupid.
It sort of imitates The Lost World - first half set on an island, second half set within human population - but it just falls on its face, especially in that second half.
We have a typical evil guy, with a ludicrous plan to use dinosaurs in modern war scenarios (again - for some absurd reason), we have a new "crazy" hybrid lab created dinosaur on the rampage (again!), And to top it all off, the writers decided to throw in a side plot about a little girl who actually a clone? What? Why?
There's also a bit with a velociraptor diving through a window, away from an explosion, like a dinosaur John McClane - we are so far away from the first movie now, is there any point in carrying on?
The first half of the film fairs slightly better, (the opening scene is a highlight for me) and the CGI is pretty solid throughout, but as soon as they leave the island, it's nosedives in spectacular fashion.
Bruce Dallas-Howard and Chris Pratt - again, both fine actors, bit here they are just there, not really adding or taking away from the whole experience.
And just like Jurassic World, it's full of silly plot points that I try not to think too hard about, bit in the end can't help myself such as:
Why is Claire not incarcerated for the events of the first film - she's definitely responsible for a lot of civilians being mailed by rampant dinosaurs.
How does the old guy have absolutely no idea that there is a massive lab/dinosaur prison below his house.
How did they get the T-Rex onto the boat into containment in the few minutes between the main characters jumping into the ocean to getting to the boat themselves?
Why does the Indoraptor happily eat everyone in sight, but then sneak up on the little girl... It's a kind of cool shit but still.
When the film reaches it's conclusion with dinosaurs roaming our everyday lives, you realise that most of the trailer is in the last minute of the film, and this was maybe all filler to reach the inevitable sequel, but to be honest, my interest is low at this point.
On a final note, I love Jeff Goldblum but what was the point of his appearance here? He literally says the name of the film out loud, and that's it. Jesus.