Search
Search results
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Persuasion: A Latter-day Tale in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I said yes to reviewing this book because even though I have not yet read the Jane Austen classic that this book is based on, I was curious about the Mormon aspect of the book and how the author would modernize it. I know some about Mormon customs and traditions, but it was still interesting to read the book from the perspective of a practicing Mormon and see how this specific religious sect influenced the main character in her daily life.
I am sure other reviews will compare and contrast in detail this book with the original Persuasion, but I will write about this book from the perspective of someone who has not read Persuasion by Jane Austen, though I have read some of her other works and I am a fan.
The book as a whole was an enjoyable romantic read with a bit of suspense and drama thrown in to create conflict. While I was reading some of the situations, I did often wonder how Jane Austen would have written them were she still alive today, such as Lily's jellyfish sting or Anne's stalker. The use of modern technology, such as computers and cell phones, also contributed to the modernization quite obviously.
The characterization that Jamison employs closely resembles Austen's skill, with personality traits that translate across any era, such as the ones' whose main concern was about money and what it can buy. There were the females whose only concern was obtaining a husband, as well as the mother who had little regard for disciplining her children. Matchmakers also abounded and many of the characters were related - either by blood or marriage.
The Mormon influences are easy to pick out, such as Anne's avoidance of alcohol and caffeine, and sometimes these little changes did not blend well with the plot, likely because I did not always understand what the terminology referred to, such as references to a "Fireside." I believe the book would have benefited from more explanation of the Mormon practices woven into the background details.
Ironically, my favorite characters were not the main characters, Anne and Neil. I had more interest in the ones that seemed to have a smaller part, such as Jay, who lost his wife after only 8 months of marriage. Anne's character seemed to fall a bit flat, and even when she was supposed to be in a highly emotional state, such as when she gets angry at Will, I had a hard time believing it. I also would have liked more emotion from Neil, as he always seemed to be too cool and collected for the events that were unfolding.
I did enjoy the book, though, and any fan of Jane Austen would enjoy this modernized tale, as well.
I am sure other reviews will compare and contrast in detail this book with the original Persuasion, but I will write about this book from the perspective of someone who has not read Persuasion by Jane Austen, though I have read some of her other works and I am a fan.
The book as a whole was an enjoyable romantic read with a bit of suspense and drama thrown in to create conflict. While I was reading some of the situations, I did often wonder how Jane Austen would have written them were she still alive today, such as Lily's jellyfish sting or Anne's stalker. The use of modern technology, such as computers and cell phones, also contributed to the modernization quite obviously.
The characterization that Jamison employs closely resembles Austen's skill, with personality traits that translate across any era, such as the ones' whose main concern was about money and what it can buy. There were the females whose only concern was obtaining a husband, as well as the mother who had little regard for disciplining her children. Matchmakers also abounded and many of the characters were related - either by blood or marriage.
The Mormon influences are easy to pick out, such as Anne's avoidance of alcohol and caffeine, and sometimes these little changes did not blend well with the plot, likely because I did not always understand what the terminology referred to, such as references to a "Fireside." I believe the book would have benefited from more explanation of the Mormon practices woven into the background details.
Ironically, my favorite characters were not the main characters, Anne and Neil. I had more interest in the ones that seemed to have a smaller part, such as Jay, who lost his wife after only 8 months of marriage. Anne's character seemed to fall a bit flat, and even when she was supposed to be in a highly emotional state, such as when she gets angry at Will, I had a hard time believing it. I also would have liked more emotion from Neil, as he always seemed to be too cool and collected for the events that were unfolding.
I did enjoy the book, though, and any fan of Jane Austen would enjoy this modernized tale, as well.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Friday (1995) in Movies
Feb 12, 2019
Comedy That Still Holds Up
Can you believe that 2018 was the first time that I ever watched Friday in its unrated entirety? I had seen bits and pieces on USA, but I always felt like I was missing something in the translation. I get it now. The plot: After Craig (Ice Cube) gets fired on his day off, he suddenly finds himself helping his pothead friend Smokey (Chris Tucker) earn enough money selling weed to pay off Big Worm (Faizon Love).
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 10
The first scene introduces Deebo (Tiny Lister) a viable villain around which the story revolves. The entire neighborhood fears and hates Deebo and it doesn’t take long at all to figure out why. He helps keep the conflict serious, but not too serious.
But we all know who makes this movie: Smokey. There isn’t one scene where I didn’t find myself laughing at something stupid he did or said. He thinks he’s the man, but it’s probably just the weed boosting his confidence. His delivery is flawless. My favorite line: “What the fuck you stealing boxes for? What, you trying to build a clubhouse? Man, I know you ain’t go out like that!” Classic. I almost died laughing when he was crying in the truck. Smokey represents a cast of characters that are all unique and hilarious in their own way.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 10
Between Smokey trying to get enough money to pay Worm and everyone trying to steer clear of Deebo, there is enough here to keep the story moving. There are shootouts, heists gone wrong, hood fights, a number of things worthy to entertain. For a comedy, I was actually impressed by the amount of action interwoven in the story.
Genre: 8
Friday ranks up there with some of the best comedies I’ve seen, second-tier worthy at the very least. Its job is to make you laugh and entertain and it does that very well. I also love that you don’t have to overthink the comedy, it’s just there in the dialogue and in the events that unfold.
Memorability: 10
Who do you know that can’t quote at least one line from Friday? I still knew lines even when I hadn’t seen it all the way through. The dialogue has a way of sticking to you long after you’ve watched the movie. I give a lot of that credit to Chris Tucker’s ability to deliver with perfect comedic timing.
Pace: 5
Plot: 6
Resolution: 10
Overall: 85
While Friday is a movie that takes awhile to get to the meat of the plot, I appreciate how hilarious it was, but also appreciate the more serious moments. It’s not just good, but surprisingly so. A movie I’ll still be watching for years to come.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 10
The first scene introduces Deebo (Tiny Lister) a viable villain around which the story revolves. The entire neighborhood fears and hates Deebo and it doesn’t take long at all to figure out why. He helps keep the conflict serious, but not too serious.
But we all know who makes this movie: Smokey. There isn’t one scene where I didn’t find myself laughing at something stupid he did or said. He thinks he’s the man, but it’s probably just the weed boosting his confidence. His delivery is flawless. My favorite line: “What the fuck you stealing boxes for? What, you trying to build a clubhouse? Man, I know you ain’t go out like that!” Classic. I almost died laughing when he was crying in the truck. Smokey represents a cast of characters that are all unique and hilarious in their own way.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 10
Between Smokey trying to get enough money to pay Worm and everyone trying to steer clear of Deebo, there is enough here to keep the story moving. There are shootouts, heists gone wrong, hood fights, a number of things worthy to entertain. For a comedy, I was actually impressed by the amount of action interwoven in the story.
Genre: 8
Friday ranks up there with some of the best comedies I’ve seen, second-tier worthy at the very least. Its job is to make you laugh and entertain and it does that very well. I also love that you don’t have to overthink the comedy, it’s just there in the dialogue and in the events that unfold.
Memorability: 10
Who do you know that can’t quote at least one line from Friday? I still knew lines even when I hadn’t seen it all the way through. The dialogue has a way of sticking to you long after you’ve watched the movie. I give a lot of that credit to Chris Tucker’s ability to deliver with perfect comedic timing.
Pace: 5
Plot: 6
Resolution: 10
Overall: 85
While Friday is a movie that takes awhile to get to the meat of the plot, I appreciate how hilarious it was, but also appreciate the more serious moments. It’s not just good, but surprisingly so. A movie I’ll still be watching for years to come.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
This was the first time that I've seen this children's classic since I was a child, and I suppose that I'd hoped that it would live up to its reputation. In all fairness though, I din't like it that much when I was a child, if I'm honest and my children, though some DO like it, others seemed to have mixed feelings. At best, it's likable but never lovable and at worst, it just isn't liked at all.
So, as an adult I watched this loose adaptation of James Bond's, Ian Flemming's novel, with every good intention, but in the end was left disappointed. Firstly, at 2 hours and 20 minutes long, it feels like an epic, and a completely unnecessary one at that. Its intermission is turned into a Batfink or Adam West's Batman styled cliffhanger rather than a thematic or narrative break that it traditionally should have been, even going so far as to recap the action in the second act!
The songs weren't great either, generally bordering on tedium rather than holding my interest. The story seems to be a little off kilter too, with a seemingly fatal crash destroying the eponymous car before its eventual restoration by Dick van Dyke. This was the culmination of a five-minute title sequence showcasing the early Grand Prix's of 1907 and '08 which for a family film seemed to drag somewhat.
But after an hour of songs and character development, we finally take off in the flying car to the fantasy land of Vulgaria, only for the whole experience to be a fantastical story told by Van Dyke's, Caractacus Potts! All in all, this was a strange film, but not in an entertaining way like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, the connection being Roald Dahl's involvement with the screenplay, but in a rather boring way, with events just seeing to happen without any really cause or need. One hour of story, then another one of fantasy. How many other films can boast this kind narrative twist and get away with it. It just seemed to be indulgent and plodding.
It would defiantly have been improved if the car was actually magical and did actually take them on this adventure rather than suggesting that it is perfectly okay to sing and dance around the real world but it's a stretch too far to have a flying car! It should have been a fantasy through and through rather than six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Ultimately, Overrated in my opinion and since the view of FOUR children, boys and girls ranging from 7 – 15, is that it's watchable rather than fully enjoyable, I suspect that this film is being viewed through rose tinted glasses.
So, as an adult I watched this loose adaptation of James Bond's, Ian Flemming's novel, with every good intention, but in the end was left disappointed. Firstly, at 2 hours and 20 minutes long, it feels like an epic, and a completely unnecessary one at that. Its intermission is turned into a Batfink or Adam West's Batman styled cliffhanger rather than a thematic or narrative break that it traditionally should have been, even going so far as to recap the action in the second act!
The songs weren't great either, generally bordering on tedium rather than holding my interest. The story seems to be a little off kilter too, with a seemingly fatal crash destroying the eponymous car before its eventual restoration by Dick van Dyke. This was the culmination of a five-minute title sequence showcasing the early Grand Prix's of 1907 and '08 which for a family film seemed to drag somewhat.
But after an hour of songs and character development, we finally take off in the flying car to the fantasy land of Vulgaria, only for the whole experience to be a fantastical story told by Van Dyke's, Caractacus Potts! All in all, this was a strange film, but not in an entertaining way like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, the connection being Roald Dahl's involvement with the screenplay, but in a rather boring way, with events just seeing to happen without any really cause or need. One hour of story, then another one of fantasy. How many other films can boast this kind narrative twist and get away with it. It just seemed to be indulgent and plodding.
It would defiantly have been improved if the car was actually magical and did actually take them on this adventure rather than suggesting that it is perfectly okay to sing and dance around the real world but it's a stretch too far to have a flying car! It should have been a fantasy through and through rather than six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Ultimately, Overrated in my opinion and since the view of FOUR children, boys and girls ranging from 7 – 15, is that it's watchable rather than fully enjoyable, I suspect that this film is being viewed through rose tinted glasses.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Butterfly Effect (2004) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Deeper than it first appears...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Having always being a fan of Time Travel and Science Fiction, I was always keen on seeing this film upon its initial release, seven years ago, now. But for one reason or another, this just didn't happen, leaving me to watch this on TV a couple of years later.
I was left disappointed. This was mainly because the film was very gritty, at times dower and not what I or many would have expected from a film in this genre. But with repeat viewings and finally watching this version, the Director's Cut, with a more downbeat and tragic conclusion, I realised that I was wrong.
Yes, this film does not tick the correct boxes for a film of this time, but that is because it is not playing it safe. It is doing what any great groundbreaking films should do and that is to find the truth of the story and tell it, show it and help the audience engage and feel it, in an uncompromising way.
*** SPOILERS *** The film deals with troubled childhoods of four kids, two of whom grow up to become Ashton Kutcher and Amy Smart. (Not literally, of course!) Kutcher's lead, has the ability to travel back to his own past for brief moments by reading his childhood journals or in some cases, watching home movies or looking at photos.
His intention upon discovering this gift, is to repair some of the damage that these events have cause to the group, who have sustained several traumas and left them in various states of dis-functionality as adults. But, as the metaphor relating to Chaos Theory states, "Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?" Philip Merilees: We witness several distinct changes in then present as a result of his tampering and this often results in more pain, in one way or another.
This is a gripping film, with a true sense of itself, philosophy and needs of the narrative to justify its own dower conclusions, and ultimately, Kutcher's final decisions.
The sound design, cinematography general direction are outstanding here, with power use of all the key elements to give us a naturalistic feel, not dis-similar from something that Steven Spielberg might produce.
The Theatrical Cut was good, but this version is superior, with a new and more appropriate ending more in keeping the with the general tone of the film, this should be a true Sci-Fi classic, in the same league as the likes of "Planet Of The Apes", "The Day The Earth Caught Fire" and in to a lesser extent, this being a more widely accepted addition, "Donnie Darko".
Highly recommended.
I was left disappointed. This was mainly because the film was very gritty, at times dower and not what I or many would have expected from a film in this genre. But with repeat viewings and finally watching this version, the Director's Cut, with a more downbeat and tragic conclusion, I realised that I was wrong.
Yes, this film does not tick the correct boxes for a film of this time, but that is because it is not playing it safe. It is doing what any great groundbreaking films should do and that is to find the truth of the story and tell it, show it and help the audience engage and feel it, in an uncompromising way.
*** SPOILERS *** The film deals with troubled childhoods of four kids, two of whom grow up to become Ashton Kutcher and Amy Smart. (Not literally, of course!) Kutcher's lead, has the ability to travel back to his own past for brief moments by reading his childhood journals or in some cases, watching home movies or looking at photos.
His intention upon discovering this gift, is to repair some of the damage that these events have cause to the group, who have sustained several traumas and left them in various states of dis-functionality as adults. But, as the metaphor relating to Chaos Theory states, "Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?" Philip Merilees: We witness several distinct changes in then present as a result of his tampering and this often results in more pain, in one way or another.
This is a gripping film, with a true sense of itself, philosophy and needs of the narrative to justify its own dower conclusions, and ultimately, Kutcher's final decisions.
The sound design, cinematography general direction are outstanding here, with power use of all the key elements to give us a naturalistic feel, not dis-similar from something that Steven Spielberg might produce.
The Theatrical Cut was good, but this version is superior, with a new and more appropriate ending more in keeping the with the general tone of the film, this should be a true Sci-Fi classic, in the same league as the likes of "Planet Of The Apes", "The Day The Earth Caught Fire" and in to a lesser extent, this being a more widely accepted addition, "Donnie Darko".
Highly recommended.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (2015) in Movies
Apr 8, 2019
What a Blast
Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is back for this fifth installment where he gathers a team to stop an international terrorist group called The Syndicate.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The Mission: Impossible franchise has a way of hopping from one locale quickly to the next and Rogue Nation is no exception. Every location brings them to a different point in the journey, a means to an end, which makes things fun to follow. There’s always something happening that manages to up the visual ante from one scene to the next. My personal favorite was a crazy car chase through a crowded city. Director Christopher McQuarrie really manages to capture the intensity of this moment as cars and motorcycles weave in and out of tight spaces. This is just one of many heartpacing sequences that are visually stunning.
Conflict: 8
While the movie doesn’t skimp on the action, Rogue Nation isn’t quite as intense as other movies in the franchise. Not to say that this movie will put you to sleep by any means as there is plenty to keep the viewer occupied. One scene (actually the scene right before the car chase I love) involves Ethan having to capture data from an underwater security system. I could take a stab at describing it, but I couldn’t do it justice. It’s intense and fun to watch at the same time. I remember watching it for the first time in theaters and screaming out loud at the movie screen as Ethan found himself racing against times. It’s action sequences like that that make me wonder why more people don’t love movies.
Genre: 7
Pretty damn good…but I’ve seen better, particularly in the franchise itself. It falls just a couple notches shy of being great. Despite falling just shy of a classic, it manages to hold its own and gives me a good time with every watch.
Memorability: 10
Car chases. Underwater security fields. Tom Cruise suspended in mid-air hanging on to the side of an aircraft. And, most importantly, Tom Cruise running. This is a movie that reminds you why it’s fun to go to the theater. Rather than beat you over the head with deep messages, it hits you with high-intensity action that inspires a rewatch.
Pace: 9
Plot: 8
Resolution: 7
Overall: 89
I won’t lie to you, I hope they make a million of these movies because it never seems to get old. Since the second film (which was a pure nightmare), the franchise not only bounced back, but continues to improve and stay fresh. Mission: Impossible—Rogue Nation is just a flat-out good time.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The Mission: Impossible franchise has a way of hopping from one locale quickly to the next and Rogue Nation is no exception. Every location brings them to a different point in the journey, a means to an end, which makes things fun to follow. There’s always something happening that manages to up the visual ante from one scene to the next. My personal favorite was a crazy car chase through a crowded city. Director Christopher McQuarrie really manages to capture the intensity of this moment as cars and motorcycles weave in and out of tight spaces. This is just one of many heartpacing sequences that are visually stunning.
Conflict: 8
While the movie doesn’t skimp on the action, Rogue Nation isn’t quite as intense as other movies in the franchise. Not to say that this movie will put you to sleep by any means as there is plenty to keep the viewer occupied. One scene (actually the scene right before the car chase I love) involves Ethan having to capture data from an underwater security system. I could take a stab at describing it, but I couldn’t do it justice. It’s intense and fun to watch at the same time. I remember watching it for the first time in theaters and screaming out loud at the movie screen as Ethan found himself racing against times. It’s action sequences like that that make me wonder why more people don’t love movies.
Genre: 7
Pretty damn good…but I’ve seen better, particularly in the franchise itself. It falls just a couple notches shy of being great. Despite falling just shy of a classic, it manages to hold its own and gives me a good time with every watch.
Memorability: 10
Car chases. Underwater security fields. Tom Cruise suspended in mid-air hanging on to the side of an aircraft. And, most importantly, Tom Cruise running. This is a movie that reminds you why it’s fun to go to the theater. Rather than beat you over the head with deep messages, it hits you with high-intensity action that inspires a rewatch.
Pace: 9
Plot: 8
Resolution: 7
Overall: 89
I won’t lie to you, I hope they make a million of these movies because it never seems to get old. Since the second film (which was a pure nightmare), the franchise not only bounced back, but continues to improve and stay fresh. Mission: Impossible—Rogue Nation is just a flat-out good time.
TheBookMother (105 KP) rated Christine in Books
May 26, 2019
Think classic slasher come Top Gear.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Like alot of my recent reads I picked up a very well loved copy from a supermarket fundraising bookcase.
Now, I do feel quite conflicted in critiquing the master that is Stephen King especially as it's not all positive. It's probably the same feeling if you kicked your Nan or when you've hidden your son's favourite toy that drives you crazy and watch him scour the house for it for days on end.
It started off in true King fashion. I've read a few of his repertoire including the classics. I have come to recognise his tone and the way he sets the scene.
We begin by meeting Dennis who is recalling past events which include his friend Arnie and his obsession with his new car Christine. We soon find out Christine is a bit more than your average first car and anyone who seems to cross Arnie will feel her very gory and murderous wrath. We learn that her previous owner LeBay begins to possess Arnie. Dennis sets out to try and save his friend from the evil clutch(es) (I had to sorry!) of Christine and stop her once and for all.
Tense, descriptive with an air of paranormal/ supernatural you generally know what you're getting with King and you know there will tend to be a twist or scare along the way.
However, I did find this abit of a slow burner and not what expected it to be.
I think it could be because this is 20+ years old and I am probably desensitised by slashers it did feel quite cliché in places.
I did at times feel slightly confused as we were introduced to Christine the possessed car but then we learn it's all to do with Lebay taking over and even ageing Arnie. It did remind me abit of Ghost Rider.
I enjoyed the music lyrics at the beginning of each chapter and throughout as it really did help set scene and help with showing the difference between Arnie and Lebay's ages.
I have to admit I was distracted alot and do put it down frequently but I did pick up and finish it eventually.
I normally finish a book in 2-3 days (children, work and life permitting!) But this took a while longer. Perhaps, as I felt it was a tad stagnant in places.
It was never the less an okay read, it's a good slasher come supernatural story but one I did think I would have enjoyed alot more.
Now, I do feel quite conflicted in critiquing the master that is Stephen King especially as it's not all positive. It's probably the same feeling if you kicked your Nan or when you've hidden your son's favourite toy that drives you crazy and watch him scour the house for it for days on end.
It started off in true King fashion. I've read a few of his repertoire including the classics. I have come to recognise his tone and the way he sets the scene.
We begin by meeting Dennis who is recalling past events which include his friend Arnie and his obsession with his new car Christine. We soon find out Christine is a bit more than your average first car and anyone who seems to cross Arnie will feel her very gory and murderous wrath. We learn that her previous owner LeBay begins to possess Arnie. Dennis sets out to try and save his friend from the evil clutch(es) (I had to sorry!) of Christine and stop her once and for all.
Tense, descriptive with an air of paranormal/ supernatural you generally know what you're getting with King and you know there will tend to be a twist or scare along the way.
However, I did find this abit of a slow burner and not what expected it to be.
I think it could be because this is 20+ years old and I am probably desensitised by slashers it did feel quite cliché in places.
I did at times feel slightly confused as we were introduced to Christine the possessed car but then we learn it's all to do with Lebay taking over and even ageing Arnie. It did remind me abit of Ghost Rider.
I enjoyed the music lyrics at the beginning of each chapter and throughout as it really did help set scene and help with showing the difference between Arnie and Lebay's ages.
I have to admit I was distracted alot and do put it down frequently but I did pick up and finish it eventually.
I normally finish a book in 2-3 days (children, work and life permitting!) But this took a while longer. Perhaps, as I felt it was a tad stagnant in places.
It was never the less an okay read, it's a good slasher come supernatural story but one I did think I would have enjoyed alot more.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Gods Of Egypt (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
God Awful
Those of you who keep up to date with the goings on in the film world may be thinking Gods of Egypt was released way back in February; and you’d be right for thinking that.
The film, directed by Alex Proyas (I, Robot, Knowing) performed so poorly in America at the start of the year that its UK release was scrapped, until now. But is the resulting film as bad as its figures would suggest? Or are we looking at a future cult classic?
Good god no. From shocking dialogue to laughable special effects; Gods of Egypt is a dreadful dirge of a movie with practically no saving graces. It’s just that bad.
The survival of mankind hangs in the balance when Set (Gerard Butler), the merciless god of darkness, usurps Egypt’s throne and plunges the empire into chaos. Hoping to save the world and rescue his true love, a defiant mortal named Bek (Brenton Thwaites) forms an alliance with the powerful god Horus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) to stop Set before he destroys everything.
Thankfully, the plot itself isn’t too bad and has a vaguely interesting premise. The problem is how it is executed. Alex Proyas takes our protagonists on a rollercoaster ride of bland set pieces, populated by cardboard enemies and special effects that manage to look expensive and awful at the same time.
Gold, blood red, sparkling granite and deep, rich blacks all combine for a nauseating colour palate, only worsened by the cinematography. No shot is lingered on for any great amount of time – it’s like Alex Proyas was too terrified of allowing his audience to see the mess up close, shifting from frame to frame every few seconds.
Elsewhere, the acting is fairly inconsistent. Gerard Butler yet again channels his character from 300, while newcomer Brenton Thwaites looks po-faced as he spouts complete and utter drivel, a departure from his promising turn in 2013’s The Giver. The painful attempts at comedy fall flat on every single occasion and ensure no cast member leaves with their dignity intact.
2016 has thrown up some pretty bad films. London Has Fallen, Through the Looking Glass and Zoolander 2 spring immediately to mind, but this manages to outdo them by a country mile.
Overall, Gods of Egypt leaves you with more questions than it answers. Why is the Egyptian god of darkness Scottish? Why is it over two hours long? What on earth was Summit Entertainment thinking pouring $140million into this thing?
There is some good news at the end of this rather murky rainbow however. Your question as to whether you should go and see it may well be the only question that can be answered.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/18/god-awful-gods-of-egypt-review/
The film, directed by Alex Proyas (I, Robot, Knowing) performed so poorly in America at the start of the year that its UK release was scrapped, until now. But is the resulting film as bad as its figures would suggest? Or are we looking at a future cult classic?
Good god no. From shocking dialogue to laughable special effects; Gods of Egypt is a dreadful dirge of a movie with practically no saving graces. It’s just that bad.
The survival of mankind hangs in the balance when Set (Gerard Butler), the merciless god of darkness, usurps Egypt’s throne and plunges the empire into chaos. Hoping to save the world and rescue his true love, a defiant mortal named Bek (Brenton Thwaites) forms an alliance with the powerful god Horus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) to stop Set before he destroys everything.
Thankfully, the plot itself isn’t too bad and has a vaguely interesting premise. The problem is how it is executed. Alex Proyas takes our protagonists on a rollercoaster ride of bland set pieces, populated by cardboard enemies and special effects that manage to look expensive and awful at the same time.
Gold, blood red, sparkling granite and deep, rich blacks all combine for a nauseating colour palate, only worsened by the cinematography. No shot is lingered on for any great amount of time – it’s like Alex Proyas was too terrified of allowing his audience to see the mess up close, shifting from frame to frame every few seconds.
Elsewhere, the acting is fairly inconsistent. Gerard Butler yet again channels his character from 300, while newcomer Brenton Thwaites looks po-faced as he spouts complete and utter drivel, a departure from his promising turn in 2013’s The Giver. The painful attempts at comedy fall flat on every single occasion and ensure no cast member leaves with their dignity intact.
2016 has thrown up some pretty bad films. London Has Fallen, Through the Looking Glass and Zoolander 2 spring immediately to mind, but this manages to outdo them by a country mile.
Overall, Gods of Egypt leaves you with more questions than it answers. Why is the Egyptian god of darkness Scottish? Why is it over two hours long? What on earth was Summit Entertainment thinking pouring $140million into this thing?
There is some good news at the end of this rather murky rainbow however. Your question as to whether you should go and see it may well be the only question that can be answered.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/18/god-awful-gods-of-egypt-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Thrilling from start to finish
Sci-fi seems to be having somewhat of a renaissance recently, that is, if you don’t count Independence Day: Resurgence which could’ve easily derailed the whole genre, never mind just the franchise.
What with last year’s The Martian, the rebirth of Star Wars and the upcoming Passengers, sci-fi is really getting its mojo back. The subject of this review, Arrival, has been hailed as a masterpiece across the Atlantic. But is it worthy of such a strong adjective?
From the director of Prisoners and Sicario; Arrival is not only one of the best sci-fi films of the last year, it’s up there with the genre’s greatest assets. We’re talking a Close Encounters level of good.
Linguistics professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) leads an elite team of investigators when humongous spaceships touch down in 12 locations around the world. As nations teeter on the verge of global war, Banks and her crew must race against time to find a way to communicate with the extra-terrestrial visitors. Hoping to unravel the mystery, she takes a chance that could threaten her life and quite possibly all of mankind.
Amy Adams leads a pleasing cast that includes commanding turns from Forest Whitaker and Jeremy Renner but it is in our female protagonist that we find the most joy. Adams is fast becoming one of Hollywood’s best actresses and her complex character is superbly written and incredibly well acted.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is truly exceptional with the alien craft taking a backseat to sweeping landscapes from across the world. The focal point of the film, a lush and open Montana valley is filmed to a breath-taking standard especially during Arrival’s opening sequences.
When it comes to special effects, director Denis Villeneuve doesn’t bombard the audience with constant CGI, instead opting for a laidback approach. Even the aliens themselves are understated in their appearance. It’s also fair to say that the film is a slow-burner with very little in the way of action – though it manages to stay well-clear of becoming tedious.
In spite of all this though, Arrival’s greatest strength is its story. This is thinking person’s sci-fi that somehow manages to cement its themes with an emotional heft of gravitational proportions. Throughout the 114 minute running time, we’re constantly reminded of our characters and where it is they come from, something missing from the majority of mass-market blockbusters these days.
Overall, Arrival is more than worthy of an adjective like masterpiece. From it’s incredible story and beautiful cinematography to what is Amy Adams’ best performance to date, it’s a new classic for the sci-fi genre and well worth a watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/11/thrilling-from-start-to-finish-arrival-review/
What with last year’s The Martian, the rebirth of Star Wars and the upcoming Passengers, sci-fi is really getting its mojo back. The subject of this review, Arrival, has been hailed as a masterpiece across the Atlantic. But is it worthy of such a strong adjective?
From the director of Prisoners and Sicario; Arrival is not only one of the best sci-fi films of the last year, it’s up there with the genre’s greatest assets. We’re talking a Close Encounters level of good.
Linguistics professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) leads an elite team of investigators when humongous spaceships touch down in 12 locations around the world. As nations teeter on the verge of global war, Banks and her crew must race against time to find a way to communicate with the extra-terrestrial visitors. Hoping to unravel the mystery, she takes a chance that could threaten her life and quite possibly all of mankind.
Amy Adams leads a pleasing cast that includes commanding turns from Forest Whitaker and Jeremy Renner but it is in our female protagonist that we find the most joy. Adams is fast becoming one of Hollywood’s best actresses and her complex character is superbly written and incredibly well acted.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is truly exceptional with the alien craft taking a backseat to sweeping landscapes from across the world. The focal point of the film, a lush and open Montana valley is filmed to a breath-taking standard especially during Arrival’s opening sequences.
When it comes to special effects, director Denis Villeneuve doesn’t bombard the audience with constant CGI, instead opting for a laidback approach. Even the aliens themselves are understated in their appearance. It’s also fair to say that the film is a slow-burner with very little in the way of action – though it manages to stay well-clear of becoming tedious.
In spite of all this though, Arrival’s greatest strength is its story. This is thinking person’s sci-fi that somehow manages to cement its themes with an emotional heft of gravitational proportions. Throughout the 114 minute running time, we’re constantly reminded of our characters and where it is they come from, something missing from the majority of mass-market blockbusters these days.
Overall, Arrival is more than worthy of an adjective like masterpiece. From it’s incredible story and beautiful cinematography to what is Amy Adams’ best performance to date, it’s a new classic for the sci-fi genre and well worth a watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/11/thrilling-from-start-to-finish-arrival-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Up (2009) in Movies
Jan 30, 2018
Pixar Does it Again
Up is one of those films that sticks with you long after the credits are done rolling. It hits you on a number of different levels, bordering close to perfection. I don't think I've seen a film that manages to switch from hurt to hilarious in such an effortless fashion.
In the beginning you meet Ellie, a cute little girl full of adventure. Her energy and excitement bleed off the screen and you can't help but smile at her. She's perfect for Carl, an innocent kid who barely says more than a few words. Their imaginative adventures get you into the story immediately. It's a relationship that makes the first ten minutes that much harder to watch. There are moments in the film that never lose impact which is testament to the film's power to stand the test of time.
For a child's film, there are a lot of layers that really make the film special. It isn't long before we get to meet Russell, an innocent boyscout turned star of the movie. He's just trying to earn another badge by helping the elderly. Underneath this unassuming kid is hurt from all the painful things happening in his life. Each character has their own respective backstory that makes them relatable and lovable.
There's good ole Doug the runt of a talking dog pack who can't seem to do right even when he tries his best. He's an outcast amongst the other dogs while still harboring those wonderful dogs traits that humans can't help but love. And how can you not love the colorful snipe Kevin whose only goal is to take care of her kids (yes, HER name is Kevin)? All of these characters are worthy of their own standalone film which is why bringing them all together for one story makes the film spectacular.
At the core of the story is the odd couple relationship between Kevin and Russell. Young and old meet and it couldn't be funnier to see the two try and operate together. As they try and understand each other, they form an unlikely bond, a closeness that was lost from both of their lives. At the risk of sounding like a teenager, it will give you all the feels.
There could be some missteps in this wonderful adventure about a man who decides to fly away in his house using thousands of balloons, but those missteps are minute. Not only are the visuals amazing, but the message is also a strong one: Don't get stuck in the past. Live life for the now.
Up is a classic. I give it a 99.
In the beginning you meet Ellie, a cute little girl full of adventure. Her energy and excitement bleed off the screen and you can't help but smile at her. She's perfect for Carl, an innocent kid who barely says more than a few words. Their imaginative adventures get you into the story immediately. It's a relationship that makes the first ten minutes that much harder to watch. There are moments in the film that never lose impact which is testament to the film's power to stand the test of time.
For a child's film, there are a lot of layers that really make the film special. It isn't long before we get to meet Russell, an innocent boyscout turned star of the movie. He's just trying to earn another badge by helping the elderly. Underneath this unassuming kid is hurt from all the painful things happening in his life. Each character has their own respective backstory that makes them relatable and lovable.
There's good ole Doug the runt of a talking dog pack who can't seem to do right even when he tries his best. He's an outcast amongst the other dogs while still harboring those wonderful dogs traits that humans can't help but love. And how can you not love the colorful snipe Kevin whose only goal is to take care of her kids (yes, HER name is Kevin)? All of these characters are worthy of their own standalone film which is why bringing them all together for one story makes the film spectacular.
At the core of the story is the odd couple relationship between Kevin and Russell. Young and old meet and it couldn't be funnier to see the two try and operate together. As they try and understand each other, they form an unlikely bond, a closeness that was lost from both of their lives. At the risk of sounding like a teenager, it will give you all the feels.
There could be some missteps in this wonderful adventure about a man who decides to fly away in his house using thousands of balloons, but those missteps are minute. Not only are the visuals amazing, but the message is also a strong one: Don't get stuck in the past. Live life for the now.
Up is a classic. I give it a 99.
Bookapotamus (289 KP) rated How Hard Can It Be? in Books
May 29, 2018
It's all fun and games until someone posts a belfie.
Kate Reddy is back. And her daughters backSIDE is causing some trouble. We jump right into our favorite bad-a$$, anxiety-ridden, take-charge heroine Kate's life as she is approaching 50 and it seems the hilarity and struggles of parenting, working, wife-ing, friendship and everything else in Kate's life is just as amusing as ever.
Kate's daughter Emily has taken a pic of her butt and the crazy life of Kate's we all know and love, just cannot seem to get any more complicated - until it does. She's been out of the workforce, and looking to get back in, She's not having much of any sort of pleasant relations with husband Richard (yes, surprisingly, still married). She's having a mini mid-life crisis trying to accept she's almost 50, her parents are aging, and her kids are now teenagers and the struggles to communicate with these digital-age micro-adults is almost as difficult as communicating with Russian Investors.
As Kate tries to make her way back into the world of investing she once was so good at, she has some pretty cringeworthy experiences, and struggles to find a way in that world as an "aging" woman. We find several comparisons to the past, when just being a mother was the wall between her and success. She finds herself lying to herself and others, trying her best to tiptoe through a marriage in crisis and lack of communication with her children, and praying the looming milestone birthday isn't going to be the demise of any semblance of the woman that she knows she is, and desperately wants to find again. Oh, and did I mention Jack is BACK?!
The book is classic Allison Pearson: witty, entertaining and full of laughs. I didn't realize how much I missed Kate (I totally still picture SJP in every situation...) and I settled into a familiar routine of rooting for her to find her stride and finally be happy with who she is, who she's becoming, and where she might be headed next.
The story is nostalgic of I Don't Know How She Does It, but reads well as a standalone with snippets of backstory that are well-placed and don't interfere. Avoiding any spoilers, I'll just say that I'm pretty sure readers and fans of Kate Reddy will be pleased at how it all turns out. How Hard Can It Be? was refreshing but familiar and it felt like an old friend was back in my life.
Thanks to NetGalley and St. Martin's Press for the Advanced Copy and opportunity to review this book.
Kate Reddy is back. And her daughters backSIDE is causing some trouble. We jump right into our favorite bad-a$$, anxiety-ridden, take-charge heroine Kate's life as she is approaching 50 and it seems the hilarity and struggles of parenting, working, wife-ing, friendship and everything else in Kate's life is just as amusing as ever.
Kate's daughter Emily has taken a pic of her butt and the crazy life of Kate's we all know and love, just cannot seem to get any more complicated - until it does. She's been out of the workforce, and looking to get back in, She's not having much of any sort of pleasant relations with husband Richard (yes, surprisingly, still married). She's having a mini mid-life crisis trying to accept she's almost 50, her parents are aging, and her kids are now teenagers and the struggles to communicate with these digital-age micro-adults is almost as difficult as communicating with Russian Investors.
As Kate tries to make her way back into the world of investing she once was so good at, she has some pretty cringeworthy experiences, and struggles to find a way in that world as an "aging" woman. We find several comparisons to the past, when just being a mother was the wall between her and success. She finds herself lying to herself and others, trying her best to tiptoe through a marriage in crisis and lack of communication with her children, and praying the looming milestone birthday isn't going to be the demise of any semblance of the woman that she knows she is, and desperately wants to find again. Oh, and did I mention Jack is BACK?!
The book is classic Allison Pearson: witty, entertaining and full of laughs. I didn't realize how much I missed Kate (I totally still picture SJP in every situation...) and I settled into a familiar routine of rooting for her to find her stride and finally be happy with who she is, who she's becoming, and where she might be headed next.
The story is nostalgic of I Don't Know How She Does It, but reads well as a standalone with snippets of backstory that are well-placed and don't interfere. Avoiding any spoilers, I'll just say that I'm pretty sure readers and fans of Kate Reddy will be pleased at how it all turns out. How Hard Can It Be? was refreshing but familiar and it felt like an old friend was back in my life.
Thanks to NetGalley and St. Martin's Press for the Advanced Copy and opportunity to review this book.