Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019) in Movies
Jun 3, 2019
Hoping it Doesn't Become a Victim of its Own Success
The world is trying to kill John Wick (Keanu Reeves)…but not before he kills them first.
Acting: 9
Beginning: 10
Characters: 8
This third installment brings back a lot of the characters we have become familiar with in the first two movies. There’s Wick, of course, striking like a black mamba and trying to kill everything in his path. Winston (Ian McShane) is back as the tasteful Manager of the underworld assassin hotel being his usual charming self. I was excited to see hotel concierge Charon (Lance Reddick) get a larger slice of the action this time around as it was long overdue in my opinion.
The rest of the characters? Meh. I could take them or leave them. Reason being, they mostly felt flat for some reason. Take The Adjudicator (Asia Kate Dillon) for example. It felt like she just showed up to be an asshole for two minutes then she would disappear. Her role was annoying at best. But Wick is who we come to see. And Wick delivers. Who cares if he’s shooting at a bunch of cardboard cut-outs?
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 8
Slightly more forgettable than the first two installments as it stumbles through a few parts here and there. There were a number of amazing scenes I can say for certain I haven’t seen done in any other action movie or any movie period. What they did with animals alone was a pleasant treat. I won’t spoil anything that you probably should know already, but I will say that the creativity and the stylistic choices of the kills makes movies like these really hard to forget.
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
There were definitely some parts that left me shaking my head. I don’t know why director Chad Stahelski chose to throw certain things in. It was almost as if they did it for the sake of trying to add more drama. With movies like these, there is no need to force anything as the drama typically comes anyway. The story is all over the place at times, overdone in others.
Resolution: 6
I watched the ending thinking, “Good…but stop there please.” It didn’t leave me wanting more, rather for the series to be done. Not sure what could have been done differently, but I think it stumbles compared to the endings of the first two.
Overall: 86
A solid addition to the franchise for sure. However, I feel it must be said: This series needs to end while it still has life. I know there is a fourth one on the way in a couple of years along with a TV show. Let’s just hope John Wick doesn’t get Hollywooded to death as a victim of its own success.
Acting: 9
Beginning: 10
Characters: 8
This third installment brings back a lot of the characters we have become familiar with in the first two movies. There’s Wick, of course, striking like a black mamba and trying to kill everything in his path. Winston (Ian McShane) is back as the tasteful Manager of the underworld assassin hotel being his usual charming self. I was excited to see hotel concierge Charon (Lance Reddick) get a larger slice of the action this time around as it was long overdue in my opinion.
The rest of the characters? Meh. I could take them or leave them. Reason being, they mostly felt flat for some reason. Take The Adjudicator (Asia Kate Dillon) for example. It felt like she just showed up to be an asshole for two minutes then she would disappear. Her role was annoying at best. But Wick is who we come to see. And Wick delivers. Who cares if he’s shooting at a bunch of cardboard cut-outs?
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 8
Slightly more forgettable than the first two installments as it stumbles through a few parts here and there. There were a number of amazing scenes I can say for certain I haven’t seen done in any other action movie or any movie period. What they did with animals alone was a pleasant treat. I won’t spoil anything that you probably should know already, but I will say that the creativity and the stylistic choices of the kills makes movies like these really hard to forget.
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
There were definitely some parts that left me shaking my head. I don’t know why director Chad Stahelski chose to throw certain things in. It was almost as if they did it for the sake of trying to add more drama. With movies like these, there is no need to force anything as the drama typically comes anyway. The story is all over the place at times, overdone in others.
Resolution: 6
I watched the ending thinking, “Good…but stop there please.” It didn’t leave me wanting more, rather for the series to be done. Not sure what could have been done differently, but I think it stumbles compared to the endings of the first two.
Overall: 86
A solid addition to the franchise for sure. However, I feel it must be said: This series needs to end while it still has life. I know there is a fourth one on the way in a couple of years along with a TV show. Let’s just hope John Wick doesn’t get Hollywooded to death as a victim of its own success.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Singin' in the Rain (1952) in Movies
Mar 28, 2018
Timeless
Hollywood star Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) has to figure out how to save his first "talking picture" film after a negative early screening.
Acting: 10
I was amazed by the versatility of the actors/actresses in the film. To be able to hit lines passionately AND dance and sing through huge musical numbers has to take some serious skill, skill I couldn't even begin to possess. The performances of Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor, and Debbie Reynold transcend time, holding strong an amazing 65 years later!
Reynolds was my favorite as (Kathy Selden). Her charm and humor are effortless and natural. Not only did she hold her own in her every scene, but she made every scene outstanding. I can't believe I am just now learning to appreciate this woman's greatness. I suppose that's what my Movies 365 quest is all about.
Beginning: 9
I suppose I should chime in here as this received my lowest score. Singin' In the Rain gets off to a very solid start as it grabs my attention right from the beginning. It's intriguing and I wasn't quite sure where they were going after the first ten minutes. Did I really enjoy the first ten minutes of the film? Absolutely. Does it compare to some of the best starts in film history. Sadly, not quite, but not far off either. Consider it a minor boo-boo that didn't even require a band-aid.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Compared to other musicals out there, you can't even mention the genre without thinking Singin' In the Rain. The musical numbers are extravagant and phenomenal. What's more, the film doesn't rely just on the music to succeed as the scripted dialogue is every bit as strong. La La Land astounded me. This film blew me away.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Sometimes this can be hard to manage in a musical whether there's too much singing and not enough dialogue scenes or vice versa. This film does an excellent job of seamlessly blending the two. Every song had its purpose and each number is active and fun, keeping you engaged throughout the film. It never got slow at any point.
Plot: 10
The story was an evolving creation. You think something is going to happen then the film takes an entirely different turn. Just when you think you have it all figured out, they throw another surprise in. The plot is clever, intriguing, and unique. I have yet to see anything like it.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 99
I went into this film wondering what all the hype was about and, after watching, I can say it's not hype. Not by a long shot, not by any means. Singin' In the Rain is amazing today and it's going to be wonderful thirty years from now. It gets all the little things perfectly right like the classic scene where Don is having a conversation about the film as they're walking past different set pieces. Timeless.
Acting: 10
I was amazed by the versatility of the actors/actresses in the film. To be able to hit lines passionately AND dance and sing through huge musical numbers has to take some serious skill, skill I couldn't even begin to possess. The performances of Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor, and Debbie Reynold transcend time, holding strong an amazing 65 years later!
Reynolds was my favorite as (Kathy Selden). Her charm and humor are effortless and natural. Not only did she hold her own in her every scene, but she made every scene outstanding. I can't believe I am just now learning to appreciate this woman's greatness. I suppose that's what my Movies 365 quest is all about.
Beginning: 9
I suppose I should chime in here as this received my lowest score. Singin' In the Rain gets off to a very solid start as it grabs my attention right from the beginning. It's intriguing and I wasn't quite sure where they were going after the first ten minutes. Did I really enjoy the first ten minutes of the film? Absolutely. Does it compare to some of the best starts in film history. Sadly, not quite, but not far off either. Consider it a minor boo-boo that didn't even require a band-aid.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Compared to other musicals out there, you can't even mention the genre without thinking Singin' In the Rain. The musical numbers are extravagant and phenomenal. What's more, the film doesn't rely just on the music to succeed as the scripted dialogue is every bit as strong. La La Land astounded me. This film blew me away.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Sometimes this can be hard to manage in a musical whether there's too much singing and not enough dialogue scenes or vice versa. This film does an excellent job of seamlessly blending the two. Every song had its purpose and each number is active and fun, keeping you engaged throughout the film. It never got slow at any point.
Plot: 10
The story was an evolving creation. You think something is going to happen then the film takes an entirely different turn. Just when you think you have it all figured out, they throw another surprise in. The plot is clever, intriguing, and unique. I have yet to see anything like it.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 99
I went into this film wondering what all the hype was about and, after watching, I can say it's not hype. Not by a long shot, not by any means. Singin' In the Rain is amazing today and it's going to be wonderful thirty years from now. It gets all the little things perfectly right like the classic scene where Don is having a conversation about the film as they're walking past different set pieces. Timeless.
BookwormMama14 (18 KP) rated London Tides (MacDonald Family Trilogy, #2) in Books
Jan 2, 2019
London Tides by Carla Laureano
Reviewed by Rachel Dixon
Radiant Lit Blog Tours
Genre: Romance
Publisher: David C. Cook
Date Published: June 1, 2015
Grace Brennan has seen the brutality of war first hand. Will she give up her identity in her career to build a new life with the man she loves?
Ian MacDonald has not seen Grace since she left him ten years ago. Grace has suffered very severe trauma with her job as a conflict photojournalist. As she searches for a place to call home, can she lay to rest the ghosts of her past? When their lives are thrown together again, they are different people than they were ten years ago. Will they be able to forge a new life together? Or will the past push them further apart then ever before?
London Tides had me biting my nails till the last page. There are a lot of ups and downs and I had no idea which direction Carla Laureano would take me next. The romance was a little more heated than in the first book, but it was still clean. Although I have never experienced PTSD, there was a side of Grace that I could completely relate to. That is the desire to know that our lives meant something. I think there is a piece inside all of us that wants to know that our lives made a difference in the world. We may not all be able to find a magic cure for a disease or personally finance an endeavor to put shoes on the feet of an entire village. But every life matters and every life makes a difference in the sphere we are placed in. Our friends, our co-workers, our children and our family. I have to believe that I have been called to where I am for a reason. I may never see the results of the impact my life has been, but God sees it. And He knows and cares about whatever challenges we are facing and if we let Him, He will guide and support us through it all. I have been swept away by the MacDonald family and can not wait for the finale Under Scottish Stars releasing Summer 2016.
Carla Laureano is the author of the RITA® award-winning romance Five Days in Skye as well as London Tides and the Celtic fantasy series The Song of Seare (as C. E. Laureano). A graduate of Pepperdine University, she worked as a sales and marketing executive for nearly a decade before leaving corporate life behind to write fiction full-time. She currently lives in Denver with her husband and two sons.
I received a free copy of London Tides as part of a blog tour with Radiant Lit in exchange for my honest review. Review copy provided by David C Cook.
Reviewed by Rachel Dixon
Radiant Lit Blog Tours
Genre: Romance
Publisher: David C. Cook
Date Published: June 1, 2015
Grace Brennan has seen the brutality of war first hand. Will she give up her identity in her career to build a new life with the man she loves?
Ian MacDonald has not seen Grace since she left him ten years ago. Grace has suffered very severe trauma with her job as a conflict photojournalist. As she searches for a place to call home, can she lay to rest the ghosts of her past? When their lives are thrown together again, they are different people than they were ten years ago. Will they be able to forge a new life together? Or will the past push them further apart then ever before?
London Tides had me biting my nails till the last page. There are a lot of ups and downs and I had no idea which direction Carla Laureano would take me next. The romance was a little more heated than in the first book, but it was still clean. Although I have never experienced PTSD, there was a side of Grace that I could completely relate to. That is the desire to know that our lives meant something. I think there is a piece inside all of us that wants to know that our lives made a difference in the world. We may not all be able to find a magic cure for a disease or personally finance an endeavor to put shoes on the feet of an entire village. But every life matters and every life makes a difference in the sphere we are placed in. Our friends, our co-workers, our children and our family. I have to believe that I have been called to where I am for a reason. I may never see the results of the impact my life has been, but God sees it. And He knows and cares about whatever challenges we are facing and if we let Him, He will guide and support us through it all. I have been swept away by the MacDonald family and can not wait for the finale Under Scottish Stars releasing Summer 2016.
Carla Laureano is the author of the RITA® award-winning romance Five Days in Skye as well as London Tides and the Celtic fantasy series The Song of Seare (as C. E. Laureano). A graduate of Pepperdine University, she worked as a sales and marketing executive for nearly a decade before leaving corporate life behind to write fiction full-time. She currently lives in Denver with her husband and two sons.
I received a free copy of London Tides as part of a blog tour with Radiant Lit in exchange for my honest review. Review copy provided by David C Cook.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover (1989) in Movies
Jan 29, 2019
Intriguing Movie
A woman begins a torrid romance of infidelity and tries to keep it from her nefarious husband.
Acting: 10
There is a reason Helen Mirren is one of my favorite actresses. She can be vulnerable and powerful all in the same breath. She makes you sympathize with her character and champion for her to win. She plays Georgina, the wife of a thug. She hates her life and is longing for more. The way she expresses that longing is done in subtle fashion, yet you can feel exactly what she is feeling. There are a number of strong performances in the film, but none quite as strong as hers.
Beginning: 1
I couldn’t tell up from down when the movie started. I didn’t know what to think, who to hate, or who to root for. That all eventually became clear, but the beginning was very muddled and had me losing hope that the movie could be good. Good thing there’s more to this film than the first ten minutes.
Characters: 7
The title, of course, gives away the characters that dominate the story. Each character carries their own weight and adds a different value to the story. Outside of Georgina, I enjoyed watching Alan Howard act out his role of Michael the Lover. He has an air of ignorance with a touch of nobility. He’s a good guy that enjoys being alone, not realizing that he is looking for someone special in his life. That is, until he meets Georgina who turns his life upside down. The interactions between the two provide for a number of great scenes. And, no, I’m not just referring to the sex, although there are some steamy scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 8
Definitely not the best drama I’ve seen, but hands-down, one of the most unique. I can honestly say I’ve never seen anything quite like this movie. It’s different for a lot of reasons, but mainly in the way the film is shot which helps push the overall tone. It shines with a special kind of flare that sticks in your memory.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 5
Plot: 10
Unique story with an interesting twist. I appreciate when movies try and do something different, and that’s where (insert long title here) succeeds. It’s a gut-wrenching love story told with conviction and passion.
Resolution: 10
Can’t talk about this movie without talking about that ending. Wow, what an ending! Didn’t see it coming in the least. It was both unbelievable and gratifying at the same time. If you haven’t heard of or seen this movie, I won’t ruin it for you. I’ll just say prepare to be pleasantly shocked.
Overall: 77
A stronger beginning and a quicker pace could have made this movie excellent, but it’s still solid enough for a one-time watch. I can guarantee you The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover will be unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.
Acting: 10
There is a reason Helen Mirren is one of my favorite actresses. She can be vulnerable and powerful all in the same breath. She makes you sympathize with her character and champion for her to win. She plays Georgina, the wife of a thug. She hates her life and is longing for more. The way she expresses that longing is done in subtle fashion, yet you can feel exactly what she is feeling. There are a number of strong performances in the film, but none quite as strong as hers.
Beginning: 1
I couldn’t tell up from down when the movie started. I didn’t know what to think, who to hate, or who to root for. That all eventually became clear, but the beginning was very muddled and had me losing hope that the movie could be good. Good thing there’s more to this film than the first ten minutes.
Characters: 7
The title, of course, gives away the characters that dominate the story. Each character carries their own weight and adds a different value to the story. Outside of Georgina, I enjoyed watching Alan Howard act out his role of Michael the Lover. He has an air of ignorance with a touch of nobility. He’s a good guy that enjoys being alone, not realizing that he is looking for someone special in his life. That is, until he meets Georgina who turns his life upside down. The interactions between the two provide for a number of great scenes. And, no, I’m not just referring to the sex, although there are some steamy scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 8
Definitely not the best drama I’ve seen, but hands-down, one of the most unique. I can honestly say I’ve never seen anything quite like this movie. It’s different for a lot of reasons, but mainly in the way the film is shot which helps push the overall tone. It shines with a special kind of flare that sticks in your memory.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 5
Plot: 10
Unique story with an interesting twist. I appreciate when movies try and do something different, and that’s where (insert long title here) succeeds. It’s a gut-wrenching love story told with conviction and passion.
Resolution: 10
Can’t talk about this movie without talking about that ending. Wow, what an ending! Didn’t see it coming in the least. It was both unbelievable and gratifying at the same time. If you haven’t heard of or seen this movie, I won’t ruin it for you. I’ll just say prepare to be pleasantly shocked.
Overall: 77
A stronger beginning and a quicker pace could have made this movie excellent, but it’s still solid enough for a one-time watch. I can guarantee you The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover will be unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019
Don't Try and Make Sense of it and You'll be Just Fine
With the aid of Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds), Tim Goodman (Justice Smith) is on a mission to find out what happened to his missing father.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 6
Characters: 10
You can’t have a movie centered around Pokemon and not have a bevy of characters to behold. Detective Pikachu does not disappoint pushing the envelope of creativity with the number of characters involved. Every Pokemon you can think of shows up in some form or fashion. I was just happy seeing Jiggly Puff get a small bit of shine. Outside of Pikachu himself, I thought the mime Pokemon was a riot. Seeing him and Pikachu together was probably one of my favorite scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
I was actually pretty impressed with the visuals here. The film takes place over a number of cool settings, including an MMA-style ring with a raging dragon. The colors are vibrant and help bring each Pokemon to life. I appreciate the attention to detail with this movie trying to incorporate as many characters from the game as possible. No corners were cut here as the characters seem to look true to form.
Conflict: 9
Entertainment Value: 8
I dare you to watch this movie and not at least be entertained by some of the parts. Maybe the action could have been spaced out better to prevent lagging, but there was enough there to keep my attention. Between that and Pikachu cracking me up every few minutes, I was surprised by how little of an effort it was to watch this movie.
Memorability: 7
There are a few scenes that are done extremely well while others could have been left out. Probably what stands out the most to me in terms of memorability is here is a movie that was most likely supposed to fail. Yet, director Rob Letterman managed to prove over and over again that the project had legs. It’s not a movie that over saturates you with great moments, but there is enough of a framework to keep you happy.
Pace: 8
Plot: 1
If they had gotten this part right, I’m looking at the movie in a whole different light. The story was all over the place. It was way too jumbled, a hot mess. There is an objective, then there’s a side objective with all these cheats along the way. I finally just said, “Screw it, I’ll enjoy it for what it is. Not going to try and make sense of it.”
Resolution: 10
The ending almost made up for the shoddy plot. It’s cute and touching, very fitting considering the craziness Pikachu and Tim went through for the duration of the story. Happy with how things shook out.
Overall: 78
Sometimes it only takes one thing to keep a movie from greatness. In this case Pokemon: Detective Pikachu couldn’t stop tripping over itself with its awkward storyline. I still recommend it for one good watch.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 6
Characters: 10
You can’t have a movie centered around Pokemon and not have a bevy of characters to behold. Detective Pikachu does not disappoint pushing the envelope of creativity with the number of characters involved. Every Pokemon you can think of shows up in some form or fashion. I was just happy seeing Jiggly Puff get a small bit of shine. Outside of Pikachu himself, I thought the mime Pokemon was a riot. Seeing him and Pikachu together was probably one of my favorite scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
I was actually pretty impressed with the visuals here. The film takes place over a number of cool settings, including an MMA-style ring with a raging dragon. The colors are vibrant and help bring each Pokemon to life. I appreciate the attention to detail with this movie trying to incorporate as many characters from the game as possible. No corners were cut here as the characters seem to look true to form.
Conflict: 9
Entertainment Value: 8
I dare you to watch this movie and not at least be entertained by some of the parts. Maybe the action could have been spaced out better to prevent lagging, but there was enough there to keep my attention. Between that and Pikachu cracking me up every few minutes, I was surprised by how little of an effort it was to watch this movie.
Memorability: 7
There are a few scenes that are done extremely well while others could have been left out. Probably what stands out the most to me in terms of memorability is here is a movie that was most likely supposed to fail. Yet, director Rob Letterman managed to prove over and over again that the project had legs. It’s not a movie that over saturates you with great moments, but there is enough of a framework to keep you happy.
Pace: 8
Plot: 1
If they had gotten this part right, I’m looking at the movie in a whole different light. The story was all over the place. It was way too jumbled, a hot mess. There is an objective, then there’s a side objective with all these cheats along the way. I finally just said, “Screw it, I’ll enjoy it for what it is. Not going to try and make sense of it.”
Resolution: 10
The ending almost made up for the shoddy plot. It’s cute and touching, very fitting considering the craziness Pikachu and Tim went through for the duration of the story. Happy with how things shook out.
Overall: 78
Sometimes it only takes one thing to keep a movie from greatness. In this case Pokemon: Detective Pikachu couldn’t stop tripping over itself with its awkward storyline. I still recommend it for one good watch.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated On the Steel Breeze in Books
Nov 21, 2019
On The Steel Breeze is the second in Reynold's Poseidon's Children trilogy and deals with the relationship between humans and artificial intelligence.
Taking up the story several years after Blue Remembered Earth the main (human) protagonist is Chiku Akinya, daughter of Sunday Akinya from the first book. She has cloned herself and the three Chikus pursue different fates but their stories inevitably interact with each other.even across light years of space.
One is lost in space, presumed dead. Another is on a colony ship heading to a planet that images have shown has a clearly alien structure on the surface. The third remains on Earth, presumably in safety.
As the colony ships near the destination planet they are riven by internal strife and politics just as Chiku finds that things are not as they seem. There are secrets both within the colony ship and with the planet itself, secrets that are bound to cause conflict when they are brought to light. On earth it is clear that some important information has been hidden and Chiku must risk her safe existence to uncover the truth, but at a high cost.
The book starts slowly, maybe a little too keen to establish who Chiku is and reinforce how the world she inhabits is different from ours. However once the story moves to the colony ships it moves along at a good pace with enough twists and surprises to keep the reader's interest. There is plenty of intrigue and it really is hard to tell where the story is going next.
We have the usual 'hard physics' at work as should be expected in a Reynolds book. Except for the hand wavium 'Chibesa physics' that powers the ships, the laws of physics are rigidly adhered to. Again we see how a battle across millions of miles of space could be achieved.
I found the ending to be satisfying (I have read reviews criticising it). It ties up the story of the earth based Chiku. The story for the colonists is clearly only beginning and the third book in the series is set up neatly in the epilogue, while at the same time providing closure on the fate of the colonists.
My only real criticism of the book (and it in no way detracted from it) was the cloning-and-memory-merging gimmick used for the Chiku clones. Although this neatly allowed the story to move between the colony ships and the solar system, I felt that this had been explored better (and with more justification) in Reynold's novel House Of Suns. Here it just seems to be a 'sci-fieqsue' way of allowing the main protagonists to communicate and empathise across the vast tracts of space and otherwise seemed superfluous given the complex set up.
Overall another excellent book from Reynolds, definitely up there with the best 'space opera' novels. I am looking forward to the third book immensely.
Taking up the story several years after Blue Remembered Earth the main (human) protagonist is Chiku Akinya, daughter of Sunday Akinya from the first book. She has cloned herself and the three Chikus pursue different fates but their stories inevitably interact with each other.even across light years of space.
One is lost in space, presumed dead. Another is on a colony ship heading to a planet that images have shown has a clearly alien structure on the surface. The third remains on Earth, presumably in safety.
As the colony ships near the destination planet they are riven by internal strife and politics just as Chiku finds that things are not as they seem. There are secrets both within the colony ship and with the planet itself, secrets that are bound to cause conflict when they are brought to light. On earth it is clear that some important information has been hidden and Chiku must risk her safe existence to uncover the truth, but at a high cost.
The book starts slowly, maybe a little too keen to establish who Chiku is and reinforce how the world she inhabits is different from ours. However once the story moves to the colony ships it moves along at a good pace with enough twists and surprises to keep the reader's interest. There is plenty of intrigue and it really is hard to tell where the story is going next.
We have the usual 'hard physics' at work as should be expected in a Reynolds book. Except for the hand wavium 'Chibesa physics' that powers the ships, the laws of physics are rigidly adhered to. Again we see how a battle across millions of miles of space could be achieved.
I found the ending to be satisfying (I have read reviews criticising it). It ties up the story of the earth based Chiku. The story for the colonists is clearly only beginning and the third book in the series is set up neatly in the epilogue, while at the same time providing closure on the fate of the colonists.
My only real criticism of the book (and it in no way detracted from it) was the cloning-and-memory-merging gimmick used for the Chiku clones. Although this neatly allowed the story to move between the colony ships and the solar system, I felt that this had been explored better (and with more justification) in Reynold's novel House Of Suns. Here it just seems to be a 'sci-fieqsue' way of allowing the main protagonists to communicate and empathise across the vast tracts of space and otherwise seemed superfluous given the complex set up.
Overall another excellent book from Reynolds, definitely up there with the best 'space opera' novels. I am looking forward to the third book immensely.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Drive Angry (2011) in Movies
Mar 13, 2020
What Happens When a Movie Meets Zero Effort
Ok, let’s not waste time with this: Drive Angry is easily one of the worst movies I’ve ever watched in my life. To be more specific, third worst behind the awful 1994 version of Fantastic Four (look that doozy up when you have a chance) and Battlefield Earth where we got to see John Travolta sporting dreads. Yes, folks, Drive Angry is bad in every single way imaginable. It is a movie you will long to forget. As far as the plot is concerned, there is a lot I tried to blot out about this movie but I’m pretty sure it’s about a man who has returned from Hell in a car he stole from the set of Fast and the Furious to prevent the sacrifice of his granddaughter by an evil cult. You say what now?
Acting: 5
I feel like these actors knew after the first week of filming that this was going to be a shit-show so they all mailed it in. Nicholas Cage, star of said shit-show, delivers his lines with the excitement of someone getting a flu shot. I won’t linger on this point, but let’s just say I’ve seen the cast of a Hallmark movie do better than these lame-duck performances.
Beginning: 1
Much like the middle and the end, the beginning is an awful disaster. It sports one of the worst setups I think I have ever seen for a movie. After ten minutes, I knew I was in for a world of pain.
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Honestly, the visuals could be a lot worse. There were some decent moments particularly when things slowed down that were bordering on looking pretty cool. While a lot of action sequences were pretty cheesy it was nice to see they at least put in a smidgeon of effort with the special effects.
Conflict: 5
Entertainment Value: 2
Memorability: 0
After the movie was over, I instantly started thinking, “Is there a time machine that I can use to get part of my life back?” There is absolutely no value in this movie, nothing to remember with the exception of the absolutely horrid filmmaking. I am still appalled this project made it through completion.
Pace: 0
Plot: 0
Story? We don’t need no stinking story! Oh, how I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during this pitch meeting. It seriously made my head hurt. They try and give you a story then throw it all out the window with repeated implausible occurrences that beat you into submission.
Resolution: 1
Overall: 24
In light of the Black Mamba Kobe Bryant’s passing, the number 24 should represent greatness. Not with my scoring of Drive Angry. Unless, of course, I’m referring to the greatness of sucking. If that’s the case, then yes, this movie is indeed great. Great and terrible.
Acting: 5
I feel like these actors knew after the first week of filming that this was going to be a shit-show so they all mailed it in. Nicholas Cage, star of said shit-show, delivers his lines with the excitement of someone getting a flu shot. I won’t linger on this point, but let’s just say I’ve seen the cast of a Hallmark movie do better than these lame-duck performances.
Beginning: 1
Much like the middle and the end, the beginning is an awful disaster. It sports one of the worst setups I think I have ever seen for a movie. After ten minutes, I knew I was in for a world of pain.
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Honestly, the visuals could be a lot worse. There were some decent moments particularly when things slowed down that were bordering on looking pretty cool. While a lot of action sequences were pretty cheesy it was nice to see they at least put in a smidgeon of effort with the special effects.
Conflict: 5
Entertainment Value: 2
Memorability: 0
After the movie was over, I instantly started thinking, “Is there a time machine that I can use to get part of my life back?” There is absolutely no value in this movie, nothing to remember with the exception of the absolutely horrid filmmaking. I am still appalled this project made it through completion.
Pace: 0
Plot: 0
Story? We don’t need no stinking story! Oh, how I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during this pitch meeting. It seriously made my head hurt. They try and give you a story then throw it all out the window with repeated implausible occurrences that beat you into submission.
Resolution: 1
Overall: 24
In light of the Black Mamba Kobe Bryant’s passing, the number 24 should represent greatness. Not with my scoring of Drive Angry. Unless, of course, I’m referring to the greatness of sucking. If that’s the case, then yes, this movie is indeed great. Great and terrible.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Crank 2: High Voltage (2009) in Movies
Apr 12, 2020
A Very Poor Man's Hardcore Henry
Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) is back (because apparently falling out of a helicopter thousands of feet in the air can’t kill him) facing off against a gang of thugs that want to harvest his “special” heart for their leader. Artificial heart attached, Chev has to keep recharging himself or slow down and, ultimately, die. Can’t make this shit up…
Acting: 2
Beginning: 4
Characters: 3
You might find it a challenge to find a more disinteresting group of characters wrapped in one movie. I’m not exaggerating when I say I hated just about everyone in Crank 2: High Voltage. Every character is overdone and represents one big waste of space. And the man of the hour, Chev Chelios? Yep, hate him too. He’s crass (and not in the cool Logan kind of way), racist (and not in the cool Clint Eastwood kind of way), and only cares about himself. Thirty minutes in, I was wishing he would run out of options and his heart would just stop, putting me out of my misery once and for all.
I wish he was the worst, but yes it gets worse. The other characters are a combination of racist stereotypes, antagonists that would be better off with a couple of lines rather than pages of them, and fodder for gunfire. The combination was painful to say the least.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 7
The action is far out there and I definitely give them a C for effort. I know farfetched is the name of the game when it comes to this movie, but so is Hardcore Henry by comparison and I loved those action scenes. Perfect example: A gunfight breaks out at a mansion. A gardener continues to hedge the bushes while bullets are flying all around him before he finally gets shot. Come on, man! Too lazy for words.
Entertainment Value: 5
Memorability: 7
For better or worse, there are definitely moments of this movie I will never forget. Like the sex scene on the horse racetrack. During a live horse race. Or the head in the jar. Or the random porn star protest. Or or or…I never said they were great memorable moments, but they are in there.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
The story doesn’t even begin to make sense. I’m only giving it a four because the whole story revolves around Chev beating people the hell up so the story really shouldn’t matter that much. Still, if you’re looking for something coherent, please save your time and go watch something else.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 52
On my quest to watch 366 movies in a year, yes, I have seen worse movies than Crank 2: High Voltage. But not many. It’s bad. Real bad. Please save your time and avoid this movie at all costs.
Acting: 2
Beginning: 4
Characters: 3
You might find it a challenge to find a more disinteresting group of characters wrapped in one movie. I’m not exaggerating when I say I hated just about everyone in Crank 2: High Voltage. Every character is overdone and represents one big waste of space. And the man of the hour, Chev Chelios? Yep, hate him too. He’s crass (and not in the cool Logan kind of way), racist (and not in the cool Clint Eastwood kind of way), and only cares about himself. Thirty minutes in, I was wishing he would run out of options and his heart would just stop, putting me out of my misery once and for all.
I wish he was the worst, but yes it gets worse. The other characters are a combination of racist stereotypes, antagonists that would be better off with a couple of lines rather than pages of them, and fodder for gunfire. The combination was painful to say the least.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 7
The action is far out there and I definitely give them a C for effort. I know farfetched is the name of the game when it comes to this movie, but so is Hardcore Henry by comparison and I loved those action scenes. Perfect example: A gunfight breaks out at a mansion. A gardener continues to hedge the bushes while bullets are flying all around him before he finally gets shot. Come on, man! Too lazy for words.
Entertainment Value: 5
Memorability: 7
For better or worse, there are definitely moments of this movie I will never forget. Like the sex scene on the horse racetrack. During a live horse race. Or the head in the jar. Or the random porn star protest. Or or or…I never said they were great memorable moments, but they are in there.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
The story doesn’t even begin to make sense. I’m only giving it a four because the whole story revolves around Chev beating people the hell up so the story really shouldn’t matter that much. Still, if you’re looking for something coherent, please save your time and go watch something else.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 52
On my quest to watch 366 movies in a year, yes, I have seen worse movies than Crank 2: High Voltage. But not many. It’s bad. Real bad. Please save your time and avoid this movie at all costs.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Heat (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In a fun twist to the traditional buddy-cop movie theme, this time we have a pair of ladies bringing The Heat to the streets of Boston for a laugh-out-loud good time.
Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy bring action and some very sharp tongues to the big screen.
The story starts out by painting a picture of the two in their separate worlds. Special Agent Ashburn (Bullock) is very prim, proper, and by-the-book. She dresses for success, knows it all, and doesn’t let so much as an S-bomb pass her lips. As she solves a case (proving herself a know-it-all in front of coworkers), a bleak picture comes into focus that this very uptight FBI agent is just the beginning.
By contrast (and fitting the expected formula), Detective Mullins (McCarthy) uses a down-and-dirty, physical, and foul-mouthed method for cleaning up the streets of Boston. Her neighborhood is definitely her home, and it needs protecting. Mullins’ slovenly lifestyle is the complete polar opposite of Ashburn, as one might expect. This conflict is the driving force behind a typical buddy cop movie. The only difference is that it’s two women instead of the usual ingredients.
Ashburn is given an assignment in Boston. The assignment will be a key, deciding factor in her next promotion, so all she wants is a simple case to solve and close. Naturally, once Mullins and Ashburn meet, sparks fly and hilarity ensues.
I went into this with low expectations, but also a deep loathing for Sandra Bullock as an actress — every role she’s ever played has been essentially the same. I expected the same in The Heat. In an oh-so-surprising twist of fate, she ended up playing the sober, strait-laced character! Despite my lack of appreciation for her acting skills, I must say she did well; her comedic timing was spot-on, and it meshed well with McCarthy’s usual brand of comedy: vociferous and physical, bordering on slapstick. I did note during the film that Bullock is definitely starting to show her age; this is not a knock on her beauty, but more an admission that I am starting to feel old!
Mullins also plays the same character in every movie role she takes, so this character was no stretch for her at all. It seems she is just there to memorize lines and provide her unabashed, high-energy quips. That said, I have to give her mad props for comedic timing and delivery. She is a one-trick-pony, but that one trick is a damn good one.
All in all, this is a great film for laughs. I laughed out loud through much of it, which was a surprise. As with all comedies, I don’t recommend spending your hard-earned cash on these top-dollar theater tickets. Wait for the small screen, but definitely see it for a good, healthy chuckle.
Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy bring action and some very sharp tongues to the big screen.
The story starts out by painting a picture of the two in their separate worlds. Special Agent Ashburn (Bullock) is very prim, proper, and by-the-book. She dresses for success, knows it all, and doesn’t let so much as an S-bomb pass her lips. As she solves a case (proving herself a know-it-all in front of coworkers), a bleak picture comes into focus that this very uptight FBI agent is just the beginning.
By contrast (and fitting the expected formula), Detective Mullins (McCarthy) uses a down-and-dirty, physical, and foul-mouthed method for cleaning up the streets of Boston. Her neighborhood is definitely her home, and it needs protecting. Mullins’ slovenly lifestyle is the complete polar opposite of Ashburn, as one might expect. This conflict is the driving force behind a typical buddy cop movie. The only difference is that it’s two women instead of the usual ingredients.
Ashburn is given an assignment in Boston. The assignment will be a key, deciding factor in her next promotion, so all she wants is a simple case to solve and close. Naturally, once Mullins and Ashburn meet, sparks fly and hilarity ensues.
I went into this with low expectations, but also a deep loathing for Sandra Bullock as an actress — every role she’s ever played has been essentially the same. I expected the same in The Heat. In an oh-so-surprising twist of fate, she ended up playing the sober, strait-laced character! Despite my lack of appreciation for her acting skills, I must say she did well; her comedic timing was spot-on, and it meshed well with McCarthy’s usual brand of comedy: vociferous and physical, bordering on slapstick. I did note during the film that Bullock is definitely starting to show her age; this is not a knock on her beauty, but more an admission that I am starting to feel old!
Mullins also plays the same character in every movie role she takes, so this character was no stretch for her at all. It seems she is just there to memorize lines and provide her unabashed, high-energy quips. That said, I have to give her mad props for comedic timing and delivery. She is a one-trick-pony, but that one trick is a damn good one.
All in all, this is a great film for laughs. I laughed out loud through much of it, which was a surprise. As with all comedies, I don’t recommend spending your hard-earned cash on these top-dollar theater tickets. Wait for the small screen, but definitely see it for a good, healthy chuckle.
World War 2 History: WW2 Lite
Book and Reference
App
A very comprehensive App on World War II made specifically for the iPad. Brings World War 2 alive on...