Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated S. Darko: A Donnie Darko Tale (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Samantha Darko, or Sam as she goes by, just wants to feel like a normal person. Back where she's from, Virginia, she feels like everyone knows everything about her yet that she's invisible at the same time. She'd change places with somebody if she could. Somehow start all over. Nothing has been the same for her since her brother, Donnie, died seven years ago and she is consumed with the same outlandish visions Donnie had. She decides to go on a road trip with her friend, Corey, to California in hopes of working for Corey's dad. Their car breaks down along the way and they wind up in a small town called Conejo Springs. This is where the world will end in four days, seventeen hours, twenty six minutes, and thirty one seconds.
s. Darko wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but that still isn't saying much. I love Donnie Darko as it seems to be a film that gets better with each viewing. When news that a sequel to the film was being made, the question that plagued me and every other person who was a fan of the first film was, "Why?" Did the original really leave much room for a sequel? Not in my eyes. The sequel does little to add to the story established in the first film. It pretty much treads the same ground. The world is going to end again. An element that is different in the film is that more than one person is having the visions this time around. While it makes sense that Sam is having these visions, it doesn't really add up why these other people are having them as well. The movie does a lot of back tracking. A lot of things are explained only to rewind and have it play out differently, which makes full use of the time travel element of the film but kind of leaves the viewer wondering if the film was nothing more than a waste of time once the ending rolls around. The film just seems to recycle most of the ingredients of the first film (time travel, Frank the Bunny...even though he's not Frank this time around, religion playing a roll in the film, black holes, etc) and is unable to establish itself as a decent sequel, let alone its own film.
The scene in Donnie Darko that has "Head Over Heels" by Tears For Fears playing in the background while we see Donnie arrive at school and the "Mad World" scene are really the first scenes that come to mind when I think of the original film. The soundtrack played a pivotal role in the film. In s. Darko, there isn't really a scene like that and the soundtrack is forgettable, which really only hurt the film in the long run.
s. Darko walks a thin line between paying homage to the original film and complete bastardization. Its plot tries to string the viewer along this intelligent and thought provoking story, but executes doing so in clumsy fashion. It resembles a circus seal waiting for its reward after playing that ensemble with its nose on the horns currently residing in front of it. It'll really only be accessible to people who were fans of the first film, which is ironic since the film will probably just wind up irritating those fans. If you can ignore the first film entirely and have no expectations for this, then you may find yourself with a direct to video release that is...pretty much just that.
s. Darko wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but that still isn't saying much. I love Donnie Darko as it seems to be a film that gets better with each viewing. When news that a sequel to the film was being made, the question that plagued me and every other person who was a fan of the first film was, "Why?" Did the original really leave much room for a sequel? Not in my eyes. The sequel does little to add to the story established in the first film. It pretty much treads the same ground. The world is going to end again. An element that is different in the film is that more than one person is having the visions this time around. While it makes sense that Sam is having these visions, it doesn't really add up why these other people are having them as well. The movie does a lot of back tracking. A lot of things are explained only to rewind and have it play out differently, which makes full use of the time travel element of the film but kind of leaves the viewer wondering if the film was nothing more than a waste of time once the ending rolls around. The film just seems to recycle most of the ingredients of the first film (time travel, Frank the Bunny...even though he's not Frank this time around, religion playing a roll in the film, black holes, etc) and is unable to establish itself as a decent sequel, let alone its own film.
The scene in Donnie Darko that has "Head Over Heels" by Tears For Fears playing in the background while we see Donnie arrive at school and the "Mad World" scene are really the first scenes that come to mind when I think of the original film. The soundtrack played a pivotal role in the film. In s. Darko, there isn't really a scene like that and the soundtrack is forgettable, which really only hurt the film in the long run.
s. Darko walks a thin line between paying homage to the original film and complete bastardization. Its plot tries to string the viewer along this intelligent and thought provoking story, but executes doing so in clumsy fashion. It resembles a circus seal waiting for its reward after playing that ensemble with its nose on the horns currently residing in front of it. It'll really only be accessible to people who were fans of the first film, which is ironic since the film will probably just wind up irritating those fans. If you can ignore the first film entirely and have no expectations for this, then you may find yourself with a direct to video release that is...pretty much just that.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Secret Life of Pets 2 (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Have they made a TV series out of this yet? If not, why not? Secret Life Of Pets would be amazingly suited to being a TV series. While the whole film is quite entertaining, there's no denying that the little "intro" bits where we see the pets at home or get little skits outside the main storyline are the best bits. If anyone remembers Garfield & Friends, that's the format I could see it working in. As it is, Secret Life Of Pets 2 is a film of three parts... but not the beginning/middle/end type. We've got three individual storylines that do at least sort of meet up at the end.
There were a lot of teaser trailers for this and sadly it meant a lot of the scenes were pre-seen in some way, shape or form. I was surprised that none of them had any extra footage that was held back. I loved the vet clip and cat training montage, but there wasn't a single new moment to make them even better.
These two scenes in particular stuck out for another reason, they really highlighted the music. It's fun and a little jazzy, but it's also slightly too loud when combined with the speech which means it doesn't feel like it's in the background anymore.
The film starts out with Max getting used to the fact that there's now a child in his home. Initially he's apprehensive but soon he warms to Liam and goes out of his way to protect him from the dangers of the world. His hypersensitivity to everything has made him nervous and he needs to overcome this if he's going to deal with Liam going to pre-school.
Meanwhile, Captain Snowball is involved in his first case, a kitten that's been catnapped... well, a white tiger who has been chained and tormented by a circus. Snowball and Daisy must execute the perfect heist and free Hu from the evil Sergei's clutches.
Our third storyline doesn't fit in with the other two so well but it's possibly my favourite. Max has asked Gidget to look after his favourite toy and in a terrible accident it bounces out of her window and ends up landing in a neighbour's front room. That neighbour is definitely a cat person. Gidget must enlist the help of Chloe to learn how to be a cat so she can infiltrate her home and rescue the toy. This leads to my favourite scene in the whole film. Plan B has to be the best plan anyone has ever come up with, and Gidget really does deserve the admiration for it.
Secret Life Of Pets 2 is another amusing addition to the Illumination catalogue, and it's certainly not the worst. I've seen it twice and it's entertaining enough to watch more than once (although probably not as close together as I saw it). There are enough moments to keep everyone engaged, there are worse ways to spend some time.
What you should do
I think this will be a good option for a family outing, well worth seeing and it seems to be particularly popular with the kids.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I think I'd want Chloe, even though I'm a bit of a dog person.
There were a lot of teaser trailers for this and sadly it meant a lot of the scenes were pre-seen in some way, shape or form. I was surprised that none of them had any extra footage that was held back. I loved the vet clip and cat training montage, but there wasn't a single new moment to make them even better.
These two scenes in particular stuck out for another reason, they really highlighted the music. It's fun and a little jazzy, but it's also slightly too loud when combined with the speech which means it doesn't feel like it's in the background anymore.
The film starts out with Max getting used to the fact that there's now a child in his home. Initially he's apprehensive but soon he warms to Liam and goes out of his way to protect him from the dangers of the world. His hypersensitivity to everything has made him nervous and he needs to overcome this if he's going to deal with Liam going to pre-school.
Meanwhile, Captain Snowball is involved in his first case, a kitten that's been catnapped... well, a white tiger who has been chained and tormented by a circus. Snowball and Daisy must execute the perfect heist and free Hu from the evil Sergei's clutches.
Our third storyline doesn't fit in with the other two so well but it's possibly my favourite. Max has asked Gidget to look after his favourite toy and in a terrible accident it bounces out of her window and ends up landing in a neighbour's front room. That neighbour is definitely a cat person. Gidget must enlist the help of Chloe to learn how to be a cat so she can infiltrate her home and rescue the toy. This leads to my favourite scene in the whole film. Plan B has to be the best plan anyone has ever come up with, and Gidget really does deserve the admiration for it.
Secret Life Of Pets 2 is another amusing addition to the Illumination catalogue, and it's certainly not the worst. I've seen it twice and it's entertaining enough to watch more than once (although probably not as close together as I saw it). There are enough moments to keep everyone engaged, there are worse ways to spend some time.
What you should do
I think this will be a good option for a family outing, well worth seeing and it seems to be particularly popular with the kids.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I think I'd want Chloe, even though I'm a bit of a dog person.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 1 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
The phenomenon of “true crime” as entertainment is disturbing. What we are saying when we subscribe to watch these compellingly morbid shows is that, of course, we don’t “enjoy” or condone the crimes themselves. But, we do increasingly expect that without the grotesque detail of primary crime scene evidence, documented visually, we can switch over to another show that will give us our macabre kick. So, it is a dangerous precedent to say that without that factor we won’t engage.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
JT (287 KP) rated Fast & Furious 6 (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
I've been a fan of this franchise since the very first film, and while Tokyo Drift might have been a little blip, or bump in the road, there is no denying that the films have delivered box office success. Fast and Furious 6 is the second film to be left on a cliffhanger (we’ll get to that later) and delves deep into the story of the mystery surrounding Letty’s (Michelle Rodriguez) death a few films ago. I don’t regard that as a plot spoiler as it’s in the trailer. Having demolished most of Rio and now living peacefully in a country with no extradition Dom and new dad Brian think that they have put all their troubles behind them.
After the opening credits montage, agent Hobbs (Johnson) comes knocking. His offer requires all the team converge once again, this time they have to track down and capture a ruthless mercenary called Owen Shaw (Luke Evans). Hobbs and Toretto have to stand side by side working together to take down the villain. Letty of course has returned and is working for the bad guys but has no memory of her past life. If you’re a true fan then the plot will reveal more back story and as it turns out part six is practically a sequel to part four with past villains announcing a few home truths.
The film and action is set in the heart of London which, includes a car chase that defies belief, a ménage à trois of fist fights on the underground, shoot outs and a drag race that drifts through Piccadilly Circus. The action is pulsating and over the top but you shouldn’t care in the least about that. What were you expecting the film to do? Each vehicular sequence is more mind bending than the next.
Take the opening chase for example. A modified F1 style car pursued by Toretto and his crew as well as local police weaves its way through the streets with the ability to flip oncoming cars. Justin Lin who directed the last four films is well in control and more than happy to up the action.
Fast and Furious 6 is guilty of plot holes, but these will only be deconstructed by people who have nothing better to do. That said, even I was left wondering what distance the longest runway in the world was? There is a good level of humour with Tyrese Gibson’s Roman providing much of the light heartedness that the film needed. Let’s face it The Avengers had the same level of action and humour mixed and that seemed to work.
One of the dangers for this was having a cast that was pretty extensive, regrouping the team meant that there was jostling for position. But on the whole everyone has their time to shine and no one is really cast to the shadows. Evans does a good job as the main antagonist and Gina Carano also proves her worth after the abject Haywire a few years back.
Fast and Furious 7 takes place back in LA after the events of this film and has a teasing post credit sequence that will bait those fans to come back once again. James Wan steps into the directors chair for the seventh film switching from the comfort of the horror genre. I found Fast and Furious 6 to be a highly entertaining film, and you’ll need to check your brain in at the door. To quote a cliché it ‘does what it says on the tin’, and doesn’t take itself too seriously.
After the opening credits montage, agent Hobbs (Johnson) comes knocking. His offer requires all the team converge once again, this time they have to track down and capture a ruthless mercenary called Owen Shaw (Luke Evans). Hobbs and Toretto have to stand side by side working together to take down the villain. Letty of course has returned and is working for the bad guys but has no memory of her past life. If you’re a true fan then the plot will reveal more back story and as it turns out part six is practically a sequel to part four with past villains announcing a few home truths.
The film and action is set in the heart of London which, includes a car chase that defies belief, a ménage à trois of fist fights on the underground, shoot outs and a drag race that drifts through Piccadilly Circus. The action is pulsating and over the top but you shouldn’t care in the least about that. What were you expecting the film to do? Each vehicular sequence is more mind bending than the next.
Take the opening chase for example. A modified F1 style car pursued by Toretto and his crew as well as local police weaves its way through the streets with the ability to flip oncoming cars. Justin Lin who directed the last four films is well in control and more than happy to up the action.
Fast and Furious 6 is guilty of plot holes, but these will only be deconstructed by people who have nothing better to do. That said, even I was left wondering what distance the longest runway in the world was? There is a good level of humour with Tyrese Gibson’s Roman providing much of the light heartedness that the film needed. Let’s face it The Avengers had the same level of action and humour mixed and that seemed to work.
One of the dangers for this was having a cast that was pretty extensive, regrouping the team meant that there was jostling for position. But on the whole everyone has their time to shine and no one is really cast to the shadows. Evans does a good job as the main antagonist and Gina Carano also proves her worth after the abject Haywire a few years back.
Fast and Furious 7 takes place back in LA after the events of this film and has a teasing post credit sequence that will bait those fans to come back once again. James Wan steps into the directors chair for the seventh film switching from the comfort of the horror genre. I found Fast and Furious 6 to be a highly entertaining film, and you’ll need to check your brain in at the door. To quote a cliché it ‘does what it says on the tin’, and doesn’t take itself too seriously.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated I Am David in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-49.png"/>;
<b><i>"You can't change others, but you can do something about a fault in yourself."</i></b>
I Am David by Anne Holm is a very interesting and emotionally powerful story about a young boy. David was born and raised in a prison when one day, he is given a backpack and a few instructions to escape and find his way to Denmark.
During this time, we follow David's adventure and his thoughts. He is programmed to not trust anyone and to escape as soon as he smells any danger coming his way. Throughout his journey, we can see that David goes through a lot of hardship and he meets many people, even though he fails to connect with them or entrust them with anything. Good people are somehow always there to help him, and I have to be honest and mention that I found this to be incredibly convenient to the story and in no way believable.
Besides this fact, we get to see David be his true self at all times, which is something I enjoyed about this book. There are instances where he has to make choices that require him to pretend and be something he is not, and he chooses to stay true to himself. Some times, these choices mean he has to give up the comforts of his new-found life, a bed to sleep in and food that is always on the table.
<b><i>"And if you never allow other people to influence what you're really like, then you've something no one can take from you - not even they."</i></b>
David's adventure will teach him many things.
Some of these traits he already knew of by seeing them in others, but now he will learn to possess them himself. Honesty, bravery, kindness. But there is one thing David never knew before: true happiness.
<b><i>"Joy passed, but happiness never completely disappeared: a touch of it remain to remind one it had been there."</i></b>
Even though I loved this book for all the right reasons, I couldn't help but notice the red flags. The parents in this book seemed to believe David's ridiculous story about the circus. They also invited him into his home without any doubts. And the most important part - David was a manipulator. Getting close to the little girl, as well as he showed open hatred towards one of the boys. And the parents were aware of all this, and still didn't seem that concerned. I understand where David came from - the way he behaved was all he's ever known. What I cannot understand was how the parents were portrayed in the book.
The ending seemed quite fast paced, even rushed. The outcome was predictable. I still manage to find the whole story unbelievable though. I recommend it to children, for the lesson of being yourself. However, I don't think that as an adult you would enjoy it.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-49.png"/>;
<b><i>"You can't change others, but you can do something about a fault in yourself."</i></b>
I Am David by Anne Holm is a very interesting and emotionally powerful story about a young boy. David was born and raised in a prison when one day, he is given a backpack and a few instructions to escape and find his way to Denmark.
During this time, we follow David's adventure and his thoughts. He is programmed to not trust anyone and to escape as soon as he smells any danger coming his way. Throughout his journey, we can see that David goes through a lot of hardship and he meets many people, even though he fails to connect with them or entrust them with anything. Good people are somehow always there to help him, and I have to be honest and mention that I found this to be incredibly convenient to the story and in no way believable.
Besides this fact, we get to see David be his true self at all times, which is something I enjoyed about this book. There are instances where he has to make choices that require him to pretend and be something he is not, and he chooses to stay true to himself. Some times, these choices mean he has to give up the comforts of his new-found life, a bed to sleep in and food that is always on the table.
<b><i>"And if you never allow other people to influence what you're really like, then you've something no one can take from you - not even they."</i></b>
David's adventure will teach him many things.
Some of these traits he already knew of by seeing them in others, but now he will learn to possess them himself. Honesty, bravery, kindness. But there is one thing David never knew before: true happiness.
<b><i>"Joy passed, but happiness never completely disappeared: a touch of it remain to remind one it had been there."</i></b>
Even though I loved this book for all the right reasons, I couldn't help but notice the red flags. The parents in this book seemed to believe David's ridiculous story about the circus. They also invited him into his home without any doubts. And the most important part - David was a manipulator. Getting close to the little girl, as well as he showed open hatred towards one of the boys. And the parents were aware of all this, and still didn't seem that concerned. I understand where David came from - the way he behaved was all he's ever known. What I cannot understand was how the parents were portrayed in the book.
The ending seemed quite fast paced, even rushed. The outcome was predictable. I still manage to find the whole story unbelievable though. I recommend it to children, for the lesson of being yourself. However, I don't think that as an adult you would enjoy it.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated the PlayStation 3 version of Psychonauts in Video Games
May 8, 2020 (Updated May 8, 2020)
Whats In Your Head
Psychonauts- I remember playing this game on the oringal Xbox and PS2 and now with the second game coming out this year hopefully. At Pax East this year, I did see the Demo and it looks excellent.
Im going to review the first one. This is the PS3 remaster verison review.
Psychonauts- is a platforming game developed by Double Fine Productions that first released in 2005.
Psychonauts follows the player-character Raz (voiced by Richard Horvitz), a young boy gifted with psychic abilities who runs away from the circus to try to sneak into a summer camp for those with similar powers to become a "Psychonaut", a spy with psychic abilities. He finds that there is a sinister plot occurring at the camp that only he can stop.
The game is centered on exploring the strange and imaginative minds of various characters that Raz encounters as a Psychonaut-in-training/"Psycadet" to help them overcome their fears or memories of their past, so as to gain their help and progress in the game. Raz gains use of several psychic abilities during the game that are used for both attacking foes and solving puzzles. The player can assign three of these powers to their controller or keyboard for quick use, but all earned powers are available at any time through a selection screen.
The game includes both the "real world" of the camp and its surroundings, as well as a number of "mental worlds" which exist in the consciousness of the game's various characters.
The mental worlds have wildly differing art and level design aesthetics, but generally have a specific goal that Raz must complete to help resolve a psychological issue a character may have, allowing the game's plot to progress.
Within the mental worlds are censors that react negatively to Raz's presence and will attack him. There are also various collectibles within the mental worlds, including "figments" of the character's imagination which help increase Raz's psi ranking, "emotional baggage" which can be sorted by finding tags and bringing them to the baggage, and "memory vaults" which can unlock a short series of slides providing extra information on that character's backstory.
The story is set in fictional Whispering Rock Psychic Summer Camp, a remote US government training facility under the guise of a children's summer camp.
Psychonauts is a platform game that incorporates various adventure elements. The player controls the main character Raz in a third-person, three-dimensional view, helping Raz to uncover a mystery at the Psychonauts training camp. Raz begins with basic movement abilities such as running and jumping, but as the game progresses, Raz gains additional psychic powers such as telekinesis, levitation, invisibility, and pyrokinesis. These abilities allow the player to explore more of the camp as well as fight off enemies.
Despite being well received, Psychonauts did not sell well with only about 100,000 retail units sold at the time of release, leading to severe financial loss for Majesco and their departure from the video game market; the title was considered a commercial failure. Psychonauts since has earned a number of industry awards and gained a cult following.
Its a excellent and phenomenal game and cant wait to play the second one.
Im going to review the first one. This is the PS3 remaster verison review.
Psychonauts- is a platforming game developed by Double Fine Productions that first released in 2005.
Psychonauts follows the player-character Raz (voiced by Richard Horvitz), a young boy gifted with psychic abilities who runs away from the circus to try to sneak into a summer camp for those with similar powers to become a "Psychonaut", a spy with psychic abilities. He finds that there is a sinister plot occurring at the camp that only he can stop.
The game is centered on exploring the strange and imaginative minds of various characters that Raz encounters as a Psychonaut-in-training/"Psycadet" to help them overcome their fears or memories of their past, so as to gain their help and progress in the game. Raz gains use of several psychic abilities during the game that are used for both attacking foes and solving puzzles. The player can assign three of these powers to their controller or keyboard for quick use, but all earned powers are available at any time through a selection screen.
The game includes both the "real world" of the camp and its surroundings, as well as a number of "mental worlds" which exist in the consciousness of the game's various characters.
The mental worlds have wildly differing art and level design aesthetics, but generally have a specific goal that Raz must complete to help resolve a psychological issue a character may have, allowing the game's plot to progress.
Within the mental worlds are censors that react negatively to Raz's presence and will attack him. There are also various collectibles within the mental worlds, including "figments" of the character's imagination which help increase Raz's psi ranking, "emotional baggage" which can be sorted by finding tags and bringing them to the baggage, and "memory vaults" which can unlock a short series of slides providing extra information on that character's backstory.
The story is set in fictional Whispering Rock Psychic Summer Camp, a remote US government training facility under the guise of a children's summer camp.
Psychonauts is a platform game that incorporates various adventure elements. The player controls the main character Raz in a third-person, three-dimensional view, helping Raz to uncover a mystery at the Psychonauts training camp. Raz begins with basic movement abilities such as running and jumping, but as the game progresses, Raz gains additional psychic powers such as telekinesis, levitation, invisibility, and pyrokinesis. These abilities allow the player to explore more of the camp as well as fight off enemies.
Despite being well received, Psychonauts did not sell well with only about 100,000 retail units sold at the time of release, leading to severe financial loss for Majesco and their departure from the video game market; the title was considered a commercial failure. Psychonauts since has earned a number of industry awards and gained a cult following.
Its a excellent and phenomenal game and cant wait to play the second one.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Nightmare Alley (2021) in Movies
Feb 4, 2022
Sum Does Not Add Up To The Total Of The Parts
If you ever want to understand the meaning of the term “the sum does not equal the total of the parts”, you need to look no further than the latest film from Guillermo Del Toro, the neo-noir thriller, NIGHTMARE ALLEY.
This film looked like it had all the right elements for a fantastic, adult film. A neo-noir thriller with a distinctive period look, helmed by a first rate director and featuring an A-List cast that are (for the most part) perfectly cast in their roles.
So why doesn’t this film rise above ordinary?
Ultimately, it is because this type of film, a neo-noir crime thriller where none of the characters are likeable or are easy to root for, is a tricky tightrope walk and, in this instance, Director del Toro opted to play it safe, focusing on mood and atmosphere, while strapping his talented cast with characters (and, ultimately, performances) that are middle-of-the road.
Bradley Cooper is the right performer in today’s world to play Stanton Carlisle, the drifter that becomes a carney that becomes a a con-man “Mentalist” who is drawn into a sinister plot by the mysterious Dr. Lilith Ritter (Cate Blanchett - also the right performer in today’s world to play this part). These 2 have decent (but not great) chemistry with each other, for you know (they way del Toro has Directed Blanchett’s performance) that she is up to something, thus keeping us at arm’s length.
But I am getting ahead of myself, for that is the 2nd half of this film, I haven’t even touched on the first half - which is part of the issue here as well.
The first hour of this 2 1/2 hour film is all set up as we follow Cooper’s character as he is introduced into a Circus sideshow of the 1940’s - and all of the characters therein. This is an interesting - if kind of slow - setup as we are treated to some interesting character building performances by some pretty terrific actors - Toni Colette, Ron Perlman, David Strathairn and, of course, the always good Willem DaFoe.
Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned Rooney Mara who is sort of the “through-line” between the 2 halves of this film, but her character is so vanilla, that one forgets her character event exists.
But…after an hour of setting up this world and these characters - the film pivots away from this area and goes to a whole different world…and a different plot. It is like a SuperHero Origin film where the first 1/2 of the film is the Origin and the 2nd half is the first adventure of said SuperHero.
And this just doesn’t work all that well in this film (even with a callback at the end), it is jarring and creates 2 different movies, neither of which rises above the average.
I lay the blame for all of this on Director Guillermo del Toro who appeared to be more interested in the look of this film (and the look is AMAZING) and just let the actors act, but not get in the way. The direction is bland, the performances are bland and the plot just doesn’t hold together.
Which is very disappointing, considering what “could have been”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This film looked like it had all the right elements for a fantastic, adult film. A neo-noir thriller with a distinctive period look, helmed by a first rate director and featuring an A-List cast that are (for the most part) perfectly cast in their roles.
So why doesn’t this film rise above ordinary?
Ultimately, it is because this type of film, a neo-noir crime thriller where none of the characters are likeable or are easy to root for, is a tricky tightrope walk and, in this instance, Director del Toro opted to play it safe, focusing on mood and atmosphere, while strapping his talented cast with characters (and, ultimately, performances) that are middle-of-the road.
Bradley Cooper is the right performer in today’s world to play Stanton Carlisle, the drifter that becomes a carney that becomes a a con-man “Mentalist” who is drawn into a sinister plot by the mysterious Dr. Lilith Ritter (Cate Blanchett - also the right performer in today’s world to play this part). These 2 have decent (but not great) chemistry with each other, for you know (they way del Toro has Directed Blanchett’s performance) that she is up to something, thus keeping us at arm’s length.
But I am getting ahead of myself, for that is the 2nd half of this film, I haven’t even touched on the first half - which is part of the issue here as well.
The first hour of this 2 1/2 hour film is all set up as we follow Cooper’s character as he is introduced into a Circus sideshow of the 1940’s - and all of the characters therein. This is an interesting - if kind of slow - setup as we are treated to some interesting character building performances by some pretty terrific actors - Toni Colette, Ron Perlman, David Strathairn and, of course, the always good Willem DaFoe.
Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned Rooney Mara who is sort of the “through-line” between the 2 halves of this film, but her character is so vanilla, that one forgets her character event exists.
But…after an hour of setting up this world and these characters - the film pivots away from this area and goes to a whole different world…and a different plot. It is like a SuperHero Origin film where the first 1/2 of the film is the Origin and the 2nd half is the first adventure of said SuperHero.
And this just doesn’t work all that well in this film (even with a callback at the end), it is jarring and creates 2 different movies, neither of which rises above the average.
I lay the blame for all of this on Director Guillermo del Toro who appeared to be more interested in the look of this film (and the look is AMAZING) and just let the actors act, but not get in the way. The direction is bland, the performances are bland and the plot just doesn’t hold together.
Which is very disappointing, considering what “could have been”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Oz the Great and Powerful (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Taking on a movie as beloved as “The Wizard of Oz” is a daunting task. The iconic Judy Garland film is considered a classic and many of the songs from the film have remained part of our culture since it was released in 1939. Despite several book sequels, the attempts to continue the series have had little success as there have been animated films as well as an urban remake, “The Wiz”, which also failed to reach the success of the original. Director Sam Raimi opted to do an original prequel story that tells of how the fabled Wizard of Oz came to be.
Oz (James Franco), is a small-time magician toiling away in small circus in Kansas in 1905. Life on the road has allowed him to be a womanizer and an egomaniac who dreams of greatness. When his actions catch up with him, Oz is forced to flee and takes refuge from an angry mob in a hot air balloon. An unexpected storm funnel grabs the balloon, and whisks Oz to a dazzling and colorful world filled with all manner of strange creatures and wonders.
Upon his arrival, Oz is greeted by Theodora (Mila Kunis), who believes that Oz is the great wizard that legend has said will arrive to save the land and rule the people in a kind and just way. It is revealed that the land is under siege from a wicked witch, and a prophecy indicates a great wizard will arrive with the same name as the land, and will save the day.
Naturally Oz does not believe this but is more than willing to charm Theodora and her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and plot to get his hands on the abundant gold that will come with his appointment as the great wizard. Oz learns that in order to take the throne, he has to defeat another witch (Michelle Williams), and sets off on a journey to the Dark Forest with his flying monkey companion Finley (Zach Braff). Along the journey, Oz learns first hand of the horrors the witch has unleashed on the unsuspecting and learns that his selfish behavior has serious consequences not just for himself, but for innocent people as well. This leads to some serious soul-searching and a confrontation that will force Oz to become the man that many believe he is, less they all perish.
The film has some great visuals as Raimi wisely shot the movie in 3D and mixed CGI with some very impressive sets. It is clear that much of the film is shot against a CGI backdrop but the visual wonder of the film is something to behold. The biggest issues I had with the film were that it was slow-paced and did drag in several parts. Franco does his best to play up the seedier side of Oz, but makes some very odd facial expressions throughout the film that seem very forced and out of place for the film and the situations he finds himself in. Kunis and Weisz make excellent witches and their backstory is a very interesting and an integral part of Dorothy’s adventures in the original film. Williams does well with her role but never seems to develop the needed chemistry with Franco. I was also surprised that the film was very light on musical numbers as there was only a hint of one that was quickly halted by Franco. “Oz: The Great and Powerful” is a visually enjoyable film that sets the stage well for the original film and Raimi is to be praised for taking on such sacred material and providing a new chapter for the modern generation. While it is not likely to be considered a classic like the original film, it is still a worthy chapter in the series which will provide good nostalgic entertainment for fans new and old alike.
Oz (James Franco), is a small-time magician toiling away in small circus in Kansas in 1905. Life on the road has allowed him to be a womanizer and an egomaniac who dreams of greatness. When his actions catch up with him, Oz is forced to flee and takes refuge from an angry mob in a hot air balloon. An unexpected storm funnel grabs the balloon, and whisks Oz to a dazzling and colorful world filled with all manner of strange creatures and wonders.
Upon his arrival, Oz is greeted by Theodora (Mila Kunis), who believes that Oz is the great wizard that legend has said will arrive to save the land and rule the people in a kind and just way. It is revealed that the land is under siege from a wicked witch, and a prophecy indicates a great wizard will arrive with the same name as the land, and will save the day.
Naturally Oz does not believe this but is more than willing to charm Theodora and her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and plot to get his hands on the abundant gold that will come with his appointment as the great wizard. Oz learns that in order to take the throne, he has to defeat another witch (Michelle Williams), and sets off on a journey to the Dark Forest with his flying monkey companion Finley (Zach Braff). Along the journey, Oz learns first hand of the horrors the witch has unleashed on the unsuspecting and learns that his selfish behavior has serious consequences not just for himself, but for innocent people as well. This leads to some serious soul-searching and a confrontation that will force Oz to become the man that many believe he is, less they all perish.
The film has some great visuals as Raimi wisely shot the movie in 3D and mixed CGI with some very impressive sets. It is clear that much of the film is shot against a CGI backdrop but the visual wonder of the film is something to behold. The biggest issues I had with the film were that it was slow-paced and did drag in several parts. Franco does his best to play up the seedier side of Oz, but makes some very odd facial expressions throughout the film that seem very forced and out of place for the film and the situations he finds himself in. Kunis and Weisz make excellent witches and their backstory is a very interesting and an integral part of Dorothy’s adventures in the original film. Williams does well with her role but never seems to develop the needed chemistry with Franco. I was also surprised that the film was very light on musical numbers as there was only a hint of one that was quickly halted by Franco. “Oz: The Great and Powerful” is a visually enjoyable film that sets the stage well for the original film and Raimi is to be praised for taking on such sacred material and providing a new chapter for the modern generation. While it is not likely to be considered a classic like the original film, it is still a worthy chapter in the series which will provide good nostalgic entertainment for fans new and old alike.