Search
The Thief (The Queen's Thief #1)
6.5
Rate It
Book
Discover the world of the Queen's Thief New York Times-bestselling author Megan Whalen Turner's...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Loose Change (2009) in Movies
Feb 21, 2019
The fact that it was originally made conceived by a few students who did all of their research themselves and took the initiative to spread the word about what they learned is admirable and impressive. (1 more)
The soundtrack by DJ Skooly is full of bangers which really helps to boost the motivation of the film.
The Greatest Trickest That The Devil Ever Pulled, Was Convincing The World That He Didn't Exist
This is a fairly odd one to review. There are several different iterations of this film, of which I have seen 3 out of a total 6. This review will be based on the 3 versions that I have seen; Loose Change: Final Cut (2007), Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (2009) and Loose Change 2nd Edition: HD (2017).
There is also the debate whether to review the films based on how smooth and professional looking the films are presentation-wise, or whether to give merit purely on how important and essential the information is that is being shared through these documentaries.
Then there is the fact that most folk who don't believe that the, '9/11 was an inside job,' conspiracy holds any water, will probably dismiss these films right from the offset. Whereas most, '9/11 truthers,' will probably defend this film's technical shortcomings because it supports their own previous beliefs.
In my opinion, the best way to look at this film is as an introduction to the concept that the public weren't given the full truth in the fallout of 9/11 and go from there. Do your own research and try to separate the facts from the conjecture before making a decision for yourself and forming your own opinion.
My personal stance on 9/11 is somewhere in-between the two extremes of either camp. I think that the theories of the buildings being vaporized by energy weapons, or the idea of there not being any actual planes flown into the buildings that day is ridiculous and I feel that outlandish theories like that actually detract and are harmful to those trying to instigate another investigation into what went on that day. However, I do think that it is pretty irrefutable that the US Government did lie to their people and covered up a good amount of what went on around the event and there are so many huge discrepancies and inconsistencies in the official commission report that even the most sceptical patriots can't say that the Government have disclosed the entire truth.
If you are someone that isn't too well-versed on why there are so many people out there that don't believe the official story of 9/11, then this is a good place to start. As with all documentaries, don't take the filmmakers entirely at their word and do your own research to make up your own mind, but this is an impressive film. I have a great admiration for the guerrilla attitude of the filmmakers and the get-up-and-go mentality present in the filmmaking is great. Unfortunately, it does lack a level of polish that we are used to seeing in many modern day documentaries produced by streaming giants like Netflix. However, this doesn't tarnish the information that is being presented by the filmmakers and isn't a reason to ignore anything that is being said here.
There is also the debate whether to review the films based on how smooth and professional looking the films are presentation-wise, or whether to give merit purely on how important and essential the information is that is being shared through these documentaries.
Then there is the fact that most folk who don't believe that the, '9/11 was an inside job,' conspiracy holds any water, will probably dismiss these films right from the offset. Whereas most, '9/11 truthers,' will probably defend this film's technical shortcomings because it supports their own previous beliefs.
In my opinion, the best way to look at this film is as an introduction to the concept that the public weren't given the full truth in the fallout of 9/11 and go from there. Do your own research and try to separate the facts from the conjecture before making a decision for yourself and forming your own opinion.
My personal stance on 9/11 is somewhere in-between the two extremes of either camp. I think that the theories of the buildings being vaporized by energy weapons, or the idea of there not being any actual planes flown into the buildings that day is ridiculous and I feel that outlandish theories like that actually detract and are harmful to those trying to instigate another investigation into what went on that day. However, I do think that it is pretty irrefutable that the US Government did lie to their people and covered up a good amount of what went on around the event and there are so many huge discrepancies and inconsistencies in the official commission report that even the most sceptical patriots can't say that the Government have disclosed the entire truth.
If you are someone that isn't too well-versed on why there are so many people out there that don't believe the official story of 9/11, then this is a good place to start. As with all documentaries, don't take the filmmakers entirely at their word and do your own research to make up your own mind, but this is an impressive film. I have a great admiration for the guerrilla attitude of the filmmakers and the get-up-and-go mentality present in the filmmaking is great. Unfortunately, it does lack a level of polish that we are used to seeing in many modern day documentaries produced by streaming giants like Netflix. However, this doesn't tarnish the information that is being presented by the filmmakers and isn't a reason to ignore anything that is being said here.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Awaken Online: Catharsis in Books
Jan 4, 2019
Bloody loved it
Catharsis takes the ideas of LitRPG (see Ready Player One for the best known but lowest explored potential example) and goes to town on it, really showing how open such an online world would be to be exploited.
Jason has always been fairly downtrodden in his high-achieving school and is neglected by his parents. One day, Falling Down-style, events transpire to make him snap and shout at his teacher and headmaster, and is expelled. He rushed home and immerses himself in the brand new online world of AO (Awaken Online).
As with Euphora Online (Phil Tucker), AO has been designed with the help of AI to try and maximise the time gamers would want to spend in the game. We are treated to flashbacks by the developers/testers who are seeing the changes the AI is making to the game's code and are trying to assess whether it remains safe for release.
Jason starts the game from scratch but due to an unusual reaction to an initial test is aligned to evil, and is therefore treated with suspicion by the in-game characters meant to help him train and become familiar with his new surroundings. This begins the chain of events that lead Jason to the path of in-game evil, in true Walter White style as one slightly dubious decision after another sees him become embroiled in some very nasty events.
Over the course of the game, Jason is honest with himself and knows what he's doing is bad but hey its just a game, why not have some fun with it. And he does. As his power grows, so does the nastiness of his actions and he soon becomes very powerful in certain ways (but thankfully more strategically and directing the action than suddenly becoming a battle master or he-man).
The world around Jason develops as he does, and his actions truly start to shape his game experience, and that of other people. I can't really go into much more detail without dropping spoilers but there are some absolutely fantastic sequences.
The game supposedly uses time compression so that an hour in the real world will feel like 3 or 4 hours in the game. My one gripe with the book is that when the game developers notice Jason's unprecedented progress through the game they begin to watch his actions and this seems to be real-time - there is no real attempt to explain how they can watch it as it unfolds (or the fact that what they are seeing will have happened quite some time before and events will have continued from there).
This book has more interaction between Jason's real life and in-game life than Euphoria Online did, which helps to explain his motivation for decisions. His real life troubles and requirements drive his desires in-game.
As usual, there is the evil AI/conspiracy aspect to the world, but this doesn't yet feel quite as big a deal as in other books, but I think that is the groundwork laid for the next two books (plus two side-quests).
I heartily recommend this book, but readers should not expect something like Ready Player one, much more like D&D or The Witcher style gaming.
Jason has always been fairly downtrodden in his high-achieving school and is neglected by his parents. One day, Falling Down-style, events transpire to make him snap and shout at his teacher and headmaster, and is expelled. He rushed home and immerses himself in the brand new online world of AO (Awaken Online).
As with Euphora Online (Phil Tucker), AO has been designed with the help of AI to try and maximise the time gamers would want to spend in the game. We are treated to flashbacks by the developers/testers who are seeing the changes the AI is making to the game's code and are trying to assess whether it remains safe for release.
Jason starts the game from scratch but due to an unusual reaction to an initial test is aligned to evil, and is therefore treated with suspicion by the in-game characters meant to help him train and become familiar with his new surroundings. This begins the chain of events that lead Jason to the path of in-game evil, in true Walter White style as one slightly dubious decision after another sees him become embroiled in some very nasty events.
Over the course of the game, Jason is honest with himself and knows what he's doing is bad but hey its just a game, why not have some fun with it. And he does. As his power grows, so does the nastiness of his actions and he soon becomes very powerful in certain ways (but thankfully more strategically and directing the action than suddenly becoming a battle master or he-man).
The world around Jason develops as he does, and his actions truly start to shape his game experience, and that of other people. I can't really go into much more detail without dropping spoilers but there are some absolutely fantastic sequences.
The game supposedly uses time compression so that an hour in the real world will feel like 3 or 4 hours in the game. My one gripe with the book is that when the game developers notice Jason's unprecedented progress through the game they begin to watch his actions and this seems to be real-time - there is no real attempt to explain how they can watch it as it unfolds (or the fact that what they are seeing will have happened quite some time before and events will have continued from there).
This book has more interaction between Jason's real life and in-game life than Euphoria Online did, which helps to explain his motivation for decisions. His real life troubles and requirements drive his desires in-game.
As usual, there is the evil AI/conspiracy aspect to the world, but this doesn't yet feel quite as big a deal as in other books, but I think that is the groundwork laid for the next two books (plus two side-quests).
I heartily recommend this book, but readers should not expect something like Ready Player one, much more like D&D or The Witcher style gaming.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Valkyrie (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Bringing historical films to the screen can be a challenge for a number of reasons. First, the filmmakers often have to condense events that happened over several weeks and months down to a two to three hour format. Secondly, holding the audience can be tricky especially when it covers an event where the outcome is well known. The final and perhaps most important obstacle is that of casting. For every George C. Scott who nailed the iconic figure of Patton there are countless others that have to be kind, not been up to the task.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Moon (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Sam Bell is at the end of his rope. He's an astronaut that took a job on the moon whose contract lasted three long years. The job requires him to send storage containers of Helium-3 back to Earth, which would essentially help with the planet's power situation. Other than his computer assistant, GERTY, Sam is alone. He's started talking to himself and basically feels like he's losing his mind since he's been on the moon for so long in this lonely state. The only thing that's really keeping him straight is the fact that he's supposed to go home in two weeks. Sam just wants to get home and see his wife and daughter, who's already growing up without him in her life. As Sam ventures outside for some everyday maintenance, he discovers something disturbing. An accident occurred while somebody was behind the wheel of one of the lunar vehicles and the unconscious man Sam pulls out of the vehicle looks exactly like him. Sam is then given the unfortunate task of trying to figure out if he's lost his marbles or if some conspiracy scheme has been transpiring right under his nose this entire time.
Moon has been one of my most anticipated films of the year ever since I saw the trailer a few months ago. Everything about the trailer pulled me in. Sam Rockwell looked to put in an incredible performance, the score sounded incredibly solid and fit the film like a glove, and it just looked like a really amazing sci-fi film. Have you ever walked away from a film completely satisfied? That feeling you have when you see a film that just sticks with you as its most memorable moments play through your head and you smile a little as you walk to your car? That's the feeling that pulsed through me after seeing Moon. A feeling that I've only felt a handful of times (The Dark Knight, Benjamin Button, Up, and Moon come to mind).
Sam Rockwell is really in top form here. I've always wanted to like him, but had always seen him in films where it felt like he was holding back and not showing his full potential. Moon definitely corrected that as Rockwell is really able to portray his acting range and how wonderful he really is. When I saw 1408, the first thing that crossed my mind after it ended was that John Cusack really carried that film. It was just him alone in a hotel room the majority of the film and he was able to make that worth watching. What John Cusack is to 1408, Sam Rockwell is to Moon as it's just Sam reacting to himself during the film's duration.
It's not often that I get to say a film met my expectations or satisfied me in every way, but Moon did just that. This is Sam Rockwell at his best. The film pulls you in as soon as the opening scene hits with Sam running on a treadmill and that familiar music from the trailer kicks in. My craving for an incredible and original sci-fi film for quite some time was met with this and it delivered in every aspect. It's definitely in the running for my favorite film of 2009.
Moon has been one of my most anticipated films of the year ever since I saw the trailer a few months ago. Everything about the trailer pulled me in. Sam Rockwell looked to put in an incredible performance, the score sounded incredibly solid and fit the film like a glove, and it just looked like a really amazing sci-fi film. Have you ever walked away from a film completely satisfied? That feeling you have when you see a film that just sticks with you as its most memorable moments play through your head and you smile a little as you walk to your car? That's the feeling that pulsed through me after seeing Moon. A feeling that I've only felt a handful of times (The Dark Knight, Benjamin Button, Up, and Moon come to mind).
Sam Rockwell is really in top form here. I've always wanted to like him, but had always seen him in films where it felt like he was holding back and not showing his full potential. Moon definitely corrected that as Rockwell is really able to portray his acting range and how wonderful he really is. When I saw 1408, the first thing that crossed my mind after it ended was that John Cusack really carried that film. It was just him alone in a hotel room the majority of the film and he was able to make that worth watching. What John Cusack is to 1408, Sam Rockwell is to Moon as it's just Sam reacting to himself during the film's duration.
It's not often that I get to say a film met my expectations or satisfied me in every way, but Moon did just that. This is Sam Rockwell at his best. The film pulls you in as soon as the opening scene hits with Sam running on a treadmill and that familiar music from the trailer kicks in. My craving for an incredible and original sci-fi film for quite some time was met with this and it delivered in every aspect. It's definitely in the running for my favorite film of 2009.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 1 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
The phenomenon of “true crime” as entertainment is disturbing. What we are saying when we subscribe to watch these compellingly morbid shows is that, of course, we don’t “enjoy” or condone the crimes themselves. But, we do increasingly expect that without the grotesque detail of primary crime scene evidence, documented visually, we can switch over to another show that will give us our macabre kick. So, it is a dangerous precedent to say that without that factor we won’t engage.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs Evil (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Does anyone remember the original Hoodwinked movie? Nobody else does, either. Blue Yonder Films, the studio that brought you Doogal tries to pull another rabbit out of their hat by releasing a sequel to the twisted fairy-tale movie titled Hoodwinked Too: Hood vs. Evil. All of the original voice characters are present from the first film, except for Red (Anne Hathaway was replaced by Hayden Panettiere), and Kirk the Woodsman (Jim Belushi , who was replaced by Martin Short).
It doesn’t really matter if you’ve seen the first movie, as a storybook opening catches the audience up on the current situation. A short intro introduces the HEA (Happily Ever After Agency; shouldn’t that be HEAA?) staking out a Wicked Witch who is holding Hansel & Gretel (Bill Hader & Amy Poehler) hostage in her Gingerbread House. The main protagonist, Red Riding Hood (Panettiere) is off on training, and her former partner, The Big Bad Wolf (Patrick Warburton) is handling the situation with Granny (Glen Close).
Of course, the seemingly simple scenario changes to a conspiracy which has actually been masterminded by the hostages, in order to drag a secret from Granny. Granny is a part of the Sisterhood of Kung-Fu Bakers (the “Hood” in the film’s title), and possesses the recipe of a secret weapon known as the Super Truffle, which supposedly makes those who consume it invincible. The movie has a small army of all-star cast members, and each one makes the most of their parts.
Unfortunately nearly everything else in the film misses the mark, from the writing, direction, and even the animation. Many other computer-animated movies today feel a lot more organic, and although the visuals of this sequel are better than the first there are times when character movements appear more programmed than motion-captured. Most of the jokes in the movie require one to have lived during the 70s or 80s, and nearly all of them are groaners. Jokes like “Dog is your co-pilot”, and a backwards sign where “dyslexic” is clearly visible are just too obscure even for the average adult. Sure, this is a family movie that should have something for everyone, but the preview theater I was in had a large mix of children and their parents, and there was only one time when the audience laughed as a whole.
There are a few running gags that did receive a positive audience response. Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong play two of the Three Little Pigs (hitmen for hire), and they received most of the genuine laughs. Another running gag was of a banjo-playing goat, who is constantly being fallen upon by other characters. This gag did get some chuckles, particularly from children, but was an obvious rip-off of “Scrat” from the Ice Age series, but just didn’t have the same charm. Most animated films either have amazing visuals, humor or heart, and the best ones blend these essentials together. Unfortunately none of these elements are present in Hoodwinked Too to make the audience feel for Red’s story, and the semi-warm victory at the end is simply “meh”.
You won’t be missing anything by skipping this film at the box office. It might be worth a rental when it comes out on DVD, but you and your family can still live a full and satisfying life without it.
It doesn’t really matter if you’ve seen the first movie, as a storybook opening catches the audience up on the current situation. A short intro introduces the HEA (Happily Ever After Agency; shouldn’t that be HEAA?) staking out a Wicked Witch who is holding Hansel & Gretel (Bill Hader & Amy Poehler) hostage in her Gingerbread House. The main protagonist, Red Riding Hood (Panettiere) is off on training, and her former partner, The Big Bad Wolf (Patrick Warburton) is handling the situation with Granny (Glen Close).
Of course, the seemingly simple scenario changes to a conspiracy which has actually been masterminded by the hostages, in order to drag a secret from Granny. Granny is a part of the Sisterhood of Kung-Fu Bakers (the “Hood” in the film’s title), and possesses the recipe of a secret weapon known as the Super Truffle, which supposedly makes those who consume it invincible. The movie has a small army of all-star cast members, and each one makes the most of their parts.
Unfortunately nearly everything else in the film misses the mark, from the writing, direction, and even the animation. Many other computer-animated movies today feel a lot more organic, and although the visuals of this sequel are better than the first there are times when character movements appear more programmed than motion-captured. Most of the jokes in the movie require one to have lived during the 70s or 80s, and nearly all of them are groaners. Jokes like “Dog is your co-pilot”, and a backwards sign where “dyslexic” is clearly visible are just too obscure even for the average adult. Sure, this is a family movie that should have something for everyone, but the preview theater I was in had a large mix of children and their parents, and there was only one time when the audience laughed as a whole.
There are a few running gags that did receive a positive audience response. Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong play two of the Three Little Pigs (hitmen for hire), and they received most of the genuine laughs. Another running gag was of a banjo-playing goat, who is constantly being fallen upon by other characters. This gag did get some chuckles, particularly from children, but was an obvious rip-off of “Scrat” from the Ice Age series, but just didn’t have the same charm. Most animated films either have amazing visuals, humor or heart, and the best ones blend these essentials together. Unfortunately none of these elements are present in Hoodwinked Too to make the audience feel for Red’s story, and the semi-warm victory at the end is simply “meh”.
You won’t be missing anything by skipping this film at the box office. It might be worth a rental when it comes out on DVD, but you and your family can still live a full and satisfying life without it.
Absolutely Manic Magazine
Lifestyle and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Manic Magazine is a free magazine app for real men, which combines fashion for men, health tips,...
Kill the Father
8.5
Rate It
Book
'The rock cast a sharp, dark shadow over a shape huddled on the ground. Please don't let it be the...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Buster's Mal Heart (2016) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Remember before the digital revolution and on demand TV channels when you had to stay up late and watch the films shown after midnight to see anything outside of the mainstream? Quite often they were awful, cheap, rambling experiences that maybe had one or two memorable scenes, or something so weird that you had to find out if any of your friends had seen it. Well, this is one of those films, except it was made in 2017 and I saw it in 2020 on Netflix.
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasn’t quite made it yet, so you probably haven’t heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but that’s about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on – but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesn’t know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which… ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isn’t really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as “showing potential”. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasn’t quite made it yet, so you probably haven’t heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but that’s about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on – but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesn’t know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which… ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isn’t really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as “showing potential”. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?