Search
Search results
Moby recommended Bryter Layter by Nick Drake in Music (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Rush (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today we bring you the latest from dircetor Ron Howard. A movie about what is considered to be one of the greatest rivalries in sports history and to this day, the greatest rivalry in the history of Formula 1 racing … the biographical action film RUSH. Released in the United States on September 20th RUSH tells the story behind the 1976 Formula 1 racing season and the intense rivalry between britsh racing champion James Hunt and austrain racing champion Niki Lauda. Staring Chis Hemsworth (Thor, Red Dawn) as Hunt and Daniel Bruhl (Inglourious Bastards, The Bourne Ultimatum) as Lauda, RUSH follows the two racing legends from their first confrontation at a Formula 3 race at England’s Crystal Palace circuit in 1970 to their accention to Formula 1 racing, to Lauda’s near-fatal carsh at the German Grand Prix and finally to the final race of the season, the Japanese Grand Prix.
What makes this movie different from other stories about the two rivals, is that it is told from the viewpoint of Niki Lauda. Written by legendary screenwritter Peter Morgan, Lauda had been approached many times by studios and writers for nearly 30 years wanting to make a movie from his point of view. Lauda had also been hesitent to make a movie for many years in part because of the death of James Hunt in 1993 at the age of 45 and felt that it wouldn’t have been ‘right’ to make a movie without his rival’s input. After meeting with dircetor Ron Howard, reading Peter Morgan’s screenplay, and with the blessing of James Hunt’s family Lauda finally agreed the movie should be made and i’m here to tell YOU my fellow movie-goers that the 30 years was worth the wait. With a supporting cast inclding Olivia Wilde, Alexandra Maria Lara, and Piefranscesco Favino it is apparent that the studios were serious about making this movie and making it right. Hemsworth and Bruhl definately deliver the goods portraying Hunt and Lauda and I will not be surprised if both of them recieve awards for their potrayals is the two leading characters in the movie. RUSH is different from alot of other movies because there is no REAL villian. It tells the story of two very different competitors in a sport where death is one small mistake away who couldn’t stand one another but at the sametime, when all is said and done they respected each other. It’s the story of two heros who pushed themselves to the limit .. sometimes losing themselves in the process and having to come to terms with the fact that they were not invinvcible.
I for one enjoyed the movie more than any other movie so far this year and I would highly recommend it to you all! Go and see it! Rotten Tomatoes gives it an 89% rating and i’m giving it 5 out of 5 stars! And with talk of the movie being nominated for awards ALREADY … How can you say ‘NO’ to recommendations like that!? It is rated R though so leave the kids at home.
What makes this movie different from other stories about the two rivals, is that it is told from the viewpoint of Niki Lauda. Written by legendary screenwritter Peter Morgan, Lauda had been approached many times by studios and writers for nearly 30 years wanting to make a movie from his point of view. Lauda had also been hesitent to make a movie for many years in part because of the death of James Hunt in 1993 at the age of 45 and felt that it wouldn’t have been ‘right’ to make a movie without his rival’s input. After meeting with dircetor Ron Howard, reading Peter Morgan’s screenplay, and with the blessing of James Hunt’s family Lauda finally agreed the movie should be made and i’m here to tell YOU my fellow movie-goers that the 30 years was worth the wait. With a supporting cast inclding Olivia Wilde, Alexandra Maria Lara, and Piefranscesco Favino it is apparent that the studios were serious about making this movie and making it right. Hemsworth and Bruhl definately deliver the goods portraying Hunt and Lauda and I will not be surprised if both of them recieve awards for their potrayals is the two leading characters in the movie. RUSH is different from alot of other movies because there is no REAL villian. It tells the story of two very different competitors in a sport where death is one small mistake away who couldn’t stand one another but at the sametime, when all is said and done they respected each other. It’s the story of two heros who pushed themselves to the limit .. sometimes losing themselves in the process and having to come to terms with the fact that they were not invinvcible.
I for one enjoyed the movie more than any other movie so far this year and I would highly recommend it to you all! Go and see it! Rotten Tomatoes gives it an 89% rating and i’m giving it 5 out of 5 stars! And with talk of the movie being nominated for awards ALREADY … How can you say ‘NO’ to recommendations like that!? It is rated R though so leave the kids at home.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Rage (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2018
If you get the option to see this film you really should take the chance.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I started out making a blog for movie reviews a short while ago for the purpose of making reviews for fans. However, I didn't expect to be sent films to review so soon. I was put in touch with film maker Chris Witherspoon, he is promoting an independent film that he wrote, produced, directed and starred in called Rage. He sent me a copy and asked if I would review it for him. Happily I accepted. This is what being a film critic and reviewer is all about. Then I started to think, an independent film? There are a lot of them around and a lot of them are made by people that believe they possess the talent and ability to make a film, but in reality they fall far short of the mark. To get a good and unbiased opinion of the film I only watched the trailer for it, I left all the promotional material I received alone. The film arrived and with a fair amount of trepidation I put it on.
The film is about Dennis, a struggling writer with a loving wife Crystal (Audrey Walker) and a mistress Dana (Anna Lodej). Heading out one day he encounters a figure on a motorcycle in a car park. Pushing the encounter to one side he meets up with Dana. During the meeting he tells her that he loves his wife and breaks off the affair. She doesn't take it all that well. Once back in his car he encounters the biker again and this time the biker scratches his car and rides off. This leads to a game of cat and mouse, where at first Dennis hunts the biker down but the confrontations escalate and Dennis is soon in fear for his life. He now believes that the biker is a former boyfriend of his now ex-lover out for revenge. The biker arrives at Dennis's home and things turn deadly.
I went into this with a very open mind. I knew this was an independent film and I didn't expect too much from it. I find this is the best way to view new films. The film started off well with good introductions to the main characters but by the time the second encounter with the biker happened I found myself drawn in to the film. I forgot all about reviewing the film and got engrossed into the story. The film finished and not for a single moment did I feel bored. The pacing of the film is great, the story progresses well and the characters are well written and acted. The biker is menacing and all the more so because you don't really know his motives. The direction is professional and makes good use of lighting and colouring. The effects are very well utilised during the films climax. But the best thing about the movie was the way the story kept you guessing. I thought I had the plot figured out about 5 different times but each time I was wrong. That's what makes a good thriller/horror. There is one particular scene that was emotionally hard to watch but its place in the film drives the story and the terror forward to a new level.
You can see with this film that Chris Witherspoon is a very talented film maker. I wish him luck and hope this film has the desired effect and someone takes a chance on his abilities. I would love to see what he could to with a studio backing him. After all Spielberg started out with a movie called Duel about a truck pursuing and terrorising someone.
If you get the chance to see this film you really should take the chance. If you do you will see the start of hopefully a very successful film maker.
The film is about Dennis, a struggling writer with a loving wife Crystal (Audrey Walker) and a mistress Dana (Anna Lodej). Heading out one day he encounters a figure on a motorcycle in a car park. Pushing the encounter to one side he meets up with Dana. During the meeting he tells her that he loves his wife and breaks off the affair. She doesn't take it all that well. Once back in his car he encounters the biker again and this time the biker scratches his car and rides off. This leads to a game of cat and mouse, where at first Dennis hunts the biker down but the confrontations escalate and Dennis is soon in fear for his life. He now believes that the biker is a former boyfriend of his now ex-lover out for revenge. The biker arrives at Dennis's home and things turn deadly.
I went into this with a very open mind. I knew this was an independent film and I didn't expect too much from it. I find this is the best way to view new films. The film started off well with good introductions to the main characters but by the time the second encounter with the biker happened I found myself drawn in to the film. I forgot all about reviewing the film and got engrossed into the story. The film finished and not for a single moment did I feel bored. The pacing of the film is great, the story progresses well and the characters are well written and acted. The biker is menacing and all the more so because you don't really know his motives. The direction is professional and makes good use of lighting and colouring. The effects are very well utilised during the films climax. But the best thing about the movie was the way the story kept you guessing. I thought I had the plot figured out about 5 different times but each time I was wrong. That's what makes a good thriller/horror. There is one particular scene that was emotionally hard to watch but its place in the film drives the story and the terror forward to a new level.
You can see with this film that Chris Witherspoon is a very talented film maker. I wish him luck and hope this film has the desired effect and someone takes a chance on his abilities. I would love to see what he could to with a studio backing him. After all Spielberg started out with a movie called Duel about a truck pursuing and terrorising someone.
If you get the chance to see this film you really should take the chance. If you do you will see the start of hopefully a very successful film maker.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Public Enemies (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
The year is 1933 and bank robberies are at an all time high. John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and Pretty Boy Floyd are at the top of their game. In the public eye, robbers are looked at as heroes instead of criminals. Dillinger enjoys the fruit of his labor to the fullest until the day Melvin Purvis is put in charge of the FBI division down in Chicago. Word traveled fast of how one of FBI's top agents (Purvis) took down Pretty Boy Floyd and hopes are high that he can help in the newly announced "war on crime." Once Purvis arrived in Chicago, the crime wave of the 30's that was on a steady uprise took a drastic decline. Bank robberies were never the same as Dillinger's friends began dropping like flies. As Dillinger's motto of not thinking about tomorrow since he's too busy enjoying today comes back to haunt him, he soon realizes that he can only hide for so long and that the feds will catch up with him sooner or later.
The most noticeable thing about the film is its cinematography. Michael Mann has used the same method of shooting Public Enemies with HD digital cameras like he did with Collateral. This could be a hassle to some viewers as the picture isn't as shaky as it was in something like Cloverfield, but isn't as crystal clear and steady as you may have found in some of Mann's earlier work like Heat or most other films, for that matter. Perspective plays a huge role in this film. Certain lighting seems to come off better being shot in HD digital and it certainly shows, but the imperfections seem to give the film more character. Some people might throw the word, "edgy," around, but we'll settle on saying this style of filming feels like a more realistic approach. It makes the audience feel like they're actually amongst these gangsters during their heyday.
It almost felt like Christian Bale didn't really want to be there. Between this and Terminator: Salvation, he's really lacking the charisma and talent he's shown in films like The Prestige and The Machinist or even American Psycho. Maybe he's just hit his peak and has nothing else up his sleeve to wow audiences. Bale has hit an eye-catching slump, which is hard to say since this is coming from a long time fan. As long as he continues to be cast in big budget films though and those films wind up doing extremely well at the box office, then not many people are going to notice a difference in the actor's lackluster performance.
Johnny Depp, on the other hand, stole every scene he was in. His cockiness and confidence in his abilities in what he does just gave life to Dillinger that makes you generally like him. You want to see him escape as soon as he gets caught, pull off that next big robbery, and succeed at everything he does so he can run off with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and live happily ever after. His dialogue is also generally pretty incredible. In the scene where he's confronting Agent Purvis from behind bars, Dillinger is asking Purvis about what it was like to kill a man. How their eyes looked and how you can literally watch a man just drift away by staring into their eyes while they're dying. That that whole experience could keep a man up at night. Purvis asks Dillinger what keeps him up at night. Dillinger, who always seemed to be chewing gum, replies, "Coffee." Dillinger just felt like one of Depp's better acting roles, as of late. He showed more emotion than we're generally used to seeing from him and it was just an incredibly strong performance from the Oscar nominee.
The film has a lot of great dialogue, intriguing character interaction, and it's interesting watching the story unfold of how the crime wave of the 30s may have come to an end, but what really makes the film worth seeing is the shootouts. Any scene that begins with somebody holding a gun is worth getting excited over. There's a scene in the woods in the latter half of the film that is worth the price of admission alone. It takes place at night and everything is littered with darkness until the tommy guns make an appearance. The way the guns light up everything else around the characters firing them was a nice touch. Small explosions erupting from a chamber every time somebody pulled the trigger. This is some of the best gunfire to ever be filmed.
When it comes to Public Enemies, it is one of the best films of the year which is mentioned in at least one of the TV spots. Anyone who was a fan of Michael Mann's previous films (or gangster films, in general) will more than likely walk away from this film satisfied. Johnny Depp is still at the top of his game while Christian Bale seems to be winding down. Public Enemies is a film worthy of the summer blockbuster season which will satisfy the appetite of any fan of crime films.
The most noticeable thing about the film is its cinematography. Michael Mann has used the same method of shooting Public Enemies with HD digital cameras like he did with Collateral. This could be a hassle to some viewers as the picture isn't as shaky as it was in something like Cloverfield, but isn't as crystal clear and steady as you may have found in some of Mann's earlier work like Heat or most other films, for that matter. Perspective plays a huge role in this film. Certain lighting seems to come off better being shot in HD digital and it certainly shows, but the imperfections seem to give the film more character. Some people might throw the word, "edgy," around, but we'll settle on saying this style of filming feels like a more realistic approach. It makes the audience feel like they're actually amongst these gangsters during their heyday.
It almost felt like Christian Bale didn't really want to be there. Between this and Terminator: Salvation, he's really lacking the charisma and talent he's shown in films like The Prestige and The Machinist or even American Psycho. Maybe he's just hit his peak and has nothing else up his sleeve to wow audiences. Bale has hit an eye-catching slump, which is hard to say since this is coming from a long time fan. As long as he continues to be cast in big budget films though and those films wind up doing extremely well at the box office, then not many people are going to notice a difference in the actor's lackluster performance.
Johnny Depp, on the other hand, stole every scene he was in. His cockiness and confidence in his abilities in what he does just gave life to Dillinger that makes you generally like him. You want to see him escape as soon as he gets caught, pull off that next big robbery, and succeed at everything he does so he can run off with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and live happily ever after. His dialogue is also generally pretty incredible. In the scene where he's confronting Agent Purvis from behind bars, Dillinger is asking Purvis about what it was like to kill a man. How their eyes looked and how you can literally watch a man just drift away by staring into their eyes while they're dying. That that whole experience could keep a man up at night. Purvis asks Dillinger what keeps him up at night. Dillinger, who always seemed to be chewing gum, replies, "Coffee." Dillinger just felt like one of Depp's better acting roles, as of late. He showed more emotion than we're generally used to seeing from him and it was just an incredibly strong performance from the Oscar nominee.
The film has a lot of great dialogue, intriguing character interaction, and it's interesting watching the story unfold of how the crime wave of the 30s may have come to an end, but what really makes the film worth seeing is the shootouts. Any scene that begins with somebody holding a gun is worth getting excited over. There's a scene in the woods in the latter half of the film that is worth the price of admission alone. It takes place at night and everything is littered with darkness until the tommy guns make an appearance. The way the guns light up everything else around the characters firing them was a nice touch. Small explosions erupting from a chamber every time somebody pulled the trigger. This is some of the best gunfire to ever be filmed.
When it comes to Public Enemies, it is one of the best films of the year which is mentioned in at least one of the TV spots. Anyone who was a fan of Michael Mann's previous films (or gangster films, in general) will more than likely walk away from this film satisfied. Johnny Depp is still at the top of his game while Christian Bale seems to be winding down. Public Enemies is a film worthy of the summer blockbuster season which will satisfy the appetite of any fan of crime films.
Piper (13 KP) rated Strangers: Prey at Night (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Real-feeling Characters (2 more)
Escalating Tension
Some Excellent Scenes
Some Naff Shots (1 more)
Hammy Acting
Contains spoilers, click to show
I’ve heard a lot of trash about this movie, and only some of it is right. Don’t get me wrong - it has its downfalls. We’ll get to those. But it’s a genuinely fun horror movie and, considering the predictability of the slasher genre, it’s fairly terrifying: the suspense doesn’t let up from damn near the beginning. For full disclosure, I haven’t seen the original Strangers movie, and I’ve heard it’s a whole lot better than this 2018 sequel. But the fact that Prey at Night stands successfully alone as a movie means it doesn’t matter which order you watch them in - all I’d say is that it’s probably best not to pay much attention to the reviews on this one (as sefl-destructive as a comment like that might be). It’s impressive in its own right, and if this apparently-subpar sequel is anything to go by, the original must be worthwhile. I’ll let you know once I’ve actually seen it.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Blue Moon City in Tabletop Games
Aug 27, 2021
Ahh Blue Moon. Delicious on a hot Summer day night. Hefeweizen is my favorite type of beer, but most places do not serve my all-time fave Hefe: Paulaner Hefe-Weizen. If you haven’t yet tried it, you must. I’m no snob or anything, so I’ll take the Blue Moon when I can’t have the Paulaner, but I wanted you all to know my tastes. So when I heard about a game that was all about a city named after a beer I enjoy (but only with an orange slice) I had to try it. Did it live up to my expectations or did it- wait, this game isn’t about beer? Why the heck did I-
Blue Moon City is a fantasy-set, hand management, set collection, city rebuilding game for two to four players. In it players are attempting to help reconstruct the war-ravaged Blue Moon City to its former glory by utilizing its citizens at crucial construction sites in order to earn crystals. It sounds weird, and it is, but read further to understand why. Oh and there are dragons that act like supervisors or teachers when they come stand by you to watch you take a test and judge you from behind the whole time.
To setup, place the Courtyard tile in the middle of the table and build the city in a 5×5 grid minus the corner tiles. Each player chooses their color and takes the mini and discs of that color. Place the dragons nearby, along with the Obelisk token, draw deck of cards, crystal chits, and dragon scale chits. Deal each player a hand of eight cards and the game may begin!
Blue Moon City is played over a series of turns, and each turn is divided into four phases: Movement, Contribution, Reset, Pass Turn. During the optional Movement phase, a player may move their pawn one to two orthagonal spaces (N/E/S/W) or use cards from their hand for their special movement powers for player pawn AND/OR dragon movement.
Next, a player may discard cards from their hand to contribute to the reconstruction of a building during this optional Contribution phase. By discarding a number of cards whose values equal or exceed the printed value on the matching-colored building tile a player will be able to place a disc upon the tile. Once the tile’s contribution spaces have been filled with discs it can be scored. To score a building tile, determine majority presence on the tile and award the Majority Bonus to that player. Any disc presence in minority will receive the Construction Bonus, including the majority winner. If a player had contributed on a tile that also was hosting a dragon mini, that player would earn a dragon scale from said dragon supervisor. Players may also make their way back to the Courtyard tile in order to donate crystals to the Obelisk. Doing so will allow the player to place one of their discs on the Obelisk itself, and the game ends when a player has placed the proper number of discs upon the Obelisk per the number of players.
When the pile of dragon scale tokens has been exhausted, players will check who currently holds the majority of scales. They will be awarded with six crystals, and any player holding three or more will receive three crystals. Turn all the dragon scales back into the supply to be earned again.
During the Reset phase a player may discard any number of cards from their hand and draw back as many cards plus two. So if a player discards zero cards from hand they would still draw two from the deck. Discarded four cards? Well redraw six.
Finally the active player will Pass Turn to the player on their left, who will complete their turn of the same four phases.
Play continues in this fashion until one player has placed the target number of discs on the Obelisk token to claim victory and dragon approval!
Components. Okay, this is a tough one because overall I love the components in the game. The dragons and player pawns are cool minis (from CMON that just makes sense). The Obelisk token is huge and I love how it looks. The art overall is really creepy, but well done, and enjoyable to behold. The player discs, though poo-pooed by other more-renowned reviewers, I find to be just fine. They are a smooth plastic in the player color and I have no problems with their quality. But speaking of colors… I agree with others that have stated the colors of some cards (or suits, if you prefer) should have been made a different color. What I mean is that the game is very greige-heavy throughout. The card suits (except the red, yellow, and blue) are a variation of the same greige that makes eyes strain to determine exactly which color they are holding. I understand that a certain aesthetic was targeted, and they certainly achieved that, but these colors do make it more difficult to play, especially for us that are starting to over-ripen with age.
Those component gripes aside, this is an incredible game. The color choices aside, I love everything about it! The movement from tile to tile, and trying to align movement with the cards in hand and keeping some back so that you can use them to move the dragon to your spot as well is just fun mental exercise. Each value 1 and 2 card has a special ability, be it movement bonuses, changing other cards’ colors, or just being straight up wild cards, and having to choose to use the cards as either the special power or for contribution values creates tons of crunchy gamer choices. Not super-crunchy. Turns won’t be mentally debated for 10 minutes, but deciding how best to use the hand of cards you hold is great.
I also very much enjoy the theme of the game, even though I was hoodwinked by the title (not really, just trying to tie it all back). I love fantasy worlds and having a unique theme is a definite plus for me. I haven’t yet thrown in the expansion tiles, but I will the next time I play. If you need a relatively quick-playing jaunt through a ravaged city, I recommend you check out Blue Moon City. Purple Phoenix Games give it a 10 / 12. It has nothing to do with beer, which would be another great theme idea – drunken dragons – but I will be holding onto this one for quite a while.
Blue Moon City is a fantasy-set, hand management, set collection, city rebuilding game for two to four players. In it players are attempting to help reconstruct the war-ravaged Blue Moon City to its former glory by utilizing its citizens at crucial construction sites in order to earn crystals. It sounds weird, and it is, but read further to understand why. Oh and there are dragons that act like supervisors or teachers when they come stand by you to watch you take a test and judge you from behind the whole time.
To setup, place the Courtyard tile in the middle of the table and build the city in a 5×5 grid minus the corner tiles. Each player chooses their color and takes the mini and discs of that color. Place the dragons nearby, along with the Obelisk token, draw deck of cards, crystal chits, and dragon scale chits. Deal each player a hand of eight cards and the game may begin!
Blue Moon City is played over a series of turns, and each turn is divided into four phases: Movement, Contribution, Reset, Pass Turn. During the optional Movement phase, a player may move their pawn one to two orthagonal spaces (N/E/S/W) or use cards from their hand for their special movement powers for player pawn AND/OR dragon movement.
Next, a player may discard cards from their hand to contribute to the reconstruction of a building during this optional Contribution phase. By discarding a number of cards whose values equal or exceed the printed value on the matching-colored building tile a player will be able to place a disc upon the tile. Once the tile’s contribution spaces have been filled with discs it can be scored. To score a building tile, determine majority presence on the tile and award the Majority Bonus to that player. Any disc presence in minority will receive the Construction Bonus, including the majority winner. If a player had contributed on a tile that also was hosting a dragon mini, that player would earn a dragon scale from said dragon supervisor. Players may also make their way back to the Courtyard tile in order to donate crystals to the Obelisk. Doing so will allow the player to place one of their discs on the Obelisk itself, and the game ends when a player has placed the proper number of discs upon the Obelisk per the number of players.
When the pile of dragon scale tokens has been exhausted, players will check who currently holds the majority of scales. They will be awarded with six crystals, and any player holding three or more will receive three crystals. Turn all the dragon scales back into the supply to be earned again.
During the Reset phase a player may discard any number of cards from their hand and draw back as many cards plus two. So if a player discards zero cards from hand they would still draw two from the deck. Discarded four cards? Well redraw six.
Finally the active player will Pass Turn to the player on their left, who will complete their turn of the same four phases.
Play continues in this fashion until one player has placed the target number of discs on the Obelisk token to claim victory and dragon approval!
Components. Okay, this is a tough one because overall I love the components in the game. The dragons and player pawns are cool minis (from CMON that just makes sense). The Obelisk token is huge and I love how it looks. The art overall is really creepy, but well done, and enjoyable to behold. The player discs, though poo-pooed by other more-renowned reviewers, I find to be just fine. They are a smooth plastic in the player color and I have no problems with their quality. But speaking of colors… I agree with others that have stated the colors of some cards (or suits, if you prefer) should have been made a different color. What I mean is that the game is very greige-heavy throughout. The card suits (except the red, yellow, and blue) are a variation of the same greige that makes eyes strain to determine exactly which color they are holding. I understand that a certain aesthetic was targeted, and they certainly achieved that, but these colors do make it more difficult to play, especially for us that are starting to over-ripen with age.
Those component gripes aside, this is an incredible game. The color choices aside, I love everything about it! The movement from tile to tile, and trying to align movement with the cards in hand and keeping some back so that you can use them to move the dragon to your spot as well is just fun mental exercise. Each value 1 and 2 card has a special ability, be it movement bonuses, changing other cards’ colors, or just being straight up wild cards, and having to choose to use the cards as either the special power or for contribution values creates tons of crunchy gamer choices. Not super-crunchy. Turns won’t be mentally debated for 10 minutes, but deciding how best to use the hand of cards you hold is great.
I also very much enjoy the theme of the game, even though I was hoodwinked by the title (not really, just trying to tie it all back). I love fantasy worlds and having a unique theme is a definite plus for me. I haven’t yet thrown in the expansion tiles, but I will the next time I play. If you need a relatively quick-playing jaunt through a ravaged city, I recommend you check out Blue Moon City. Purple Phoenix Games give it a 10 / 12. It has nothing to do with beer, which would be another great theme idea – drunken dragons – but I will be holding onto this one for quite a while.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Exalted Gate in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
I absolutely love the cover of this book. It is gorgeous!! Anyway, this book has ten stories in it, so I will review and rate each one individually.
*
Boots
Judith (of an undisclosed age) is a girl that hates wearing shoes. However, she is in a play where she has to play a Polish tramp. She doesn't want to wear shoes, but the director says even tramps wear shoes. She finds some beat up looking boots in the prop room and puts them on. As soon as they are on her feet, it's like they have a mind of their own. They take Judith where they want to go. What ensues in an adventure that Judith won't soon forget.
I thought the story of Boots was a really cute and interesting read. I definitely think this will appeal to children of all ages. The only slight problem was with punctuation, but that's nothing that major. Judith is an interesting girl. I'd recommend this story.
I'd give Boots a 4.5 out of 5.
*
Five Gifts
Lonia is a thirteen year old girl whose parents are already nagging her to get married. (Yeah, it's a bit much, but it does say in the story that this was way back in the day). She'd rather spend her days in the children's glade talking to her elf friend, Pintak. One day, Pintak is kidnapped by a mean old wizard, and Lonia decides that she must go rescue him. She is given five gifts from different creatures of the forest to help her on her quest.
I was impressed with this story, and I found it quite interesting. There's also a lesson to be learned about experimenting on animals. Lonia was definitely a brave little girl and was willing to risk everything to save her friend. There are a few punctuation mistakes and a mispelt word, but other than that, this story was a good one.
I'd give Five Gifts a 5 out of 5.
*
Sintinko
Sintinko is a story set in Japan back when it was all emperors and generals. The emperor is jealous of Sintinko and wants to have him killed. It's only because of Ilyo, Sintinko's love interest, that the emperor spares his life. However, Sintinko is banished from Japan until he can find a maple tree that can sit in the hand of the emperor. Ilyo and Sintinko know that they will most likely never see each other. Unbeknownst to Sintinko and everyone else, Ilyo disguises herself as a geisha to help Sintinko on his journey. Love and loss are the themes of this story.
This was such a bittersweet love story. I felt sorry for both Sintinko and Ilyo. Sintinko thought he would never see his beloved again and swore off any type of relationship. Ilyo had her beloved right there in front of her, yet she couldn't do anything about it.
The names, being Japanese, were a bit hard to pronounce, but it's easy to get past that since the story is so strong. Speaking of names, this story even lets us know how the Bonsai tree got its name.
There's a few punctuation mistakes, but nothing that takes away from the story.
I think this story would be better suited for ages 11+. Personally, I found the story a bit slow, but not painfully slow.
I'd give Sintinko a 3.5 out of 5.
*
Tivurambhat
Tivurambhat is the story of a ghost by the same name of the title who helps people out in times of need in India. A mean man forces people to work for him by letting them borrow money, putting the interest up, and paying them such low wages they can never afford to pay him pack. One man decides to do something about it and goes to Tivurambhat for help.
I loved the message behind the story. Towards the ending, it even had me smiling. I couldn't pronounce the names since they were all Indian names, so I just shortened them so my American self could pronounce them. I loved the character of Tiv. He kind of reminded me of an American version of Casper for some reason. I really enjoyed the conversation between Pradesh and Tiv the most. This was such a happy story!
Again, there's some punctuation mistakes and a few grammar ones as well, but the story itself was excellent.
I'd give Tivurambhat a 5 out of 5.
*
St. Penalyn's Well
St Penalyn's Well tells the story of Rebecca (of an undisclosed age) who ventures into an overgrown garden with her dog. She stumbles across a well with an inscription. It is while reading this inscription that she becomes trapped in the well. Lucky for her, she meets an elf named Opickle who keeps her company and gives her the inspiration she needs to find her way out.
This was definitely an interesting story. I was hooked all the way through. It's a story about friendship amongst diversity and not giving up. I found Opickle to be just a tad bit of a snob but not enough to put me off the story.
A few punctuation mistakes throughout the story but not enough to be distracting.
St. Penalyn's Well gets a 5 out of 5 from me.
*
Quint and Trout's Mistake
Quint and Trout's Mistake is a story I didn't finish because of the name calling and making fun of someone who is overweight. It starts out innocently enough. A lake is being overrun by a white smelly substance. Two brothers, Quint and Trout, talk their friend Ned into investigating why this is happening. Ned swims down to the bottom of the lake and finds an overweight creature living in a cave who has been kicked out of his house. This is when the name calling starts, and I stopped reading.
I do not like stories aimed at children that condone name calling of any sort whether it be because of weight, disabilities, race, etc. Children do not need to read something like this and feel bad about themselves or view it as an excuse to tease others. I was very disappointed something like this was in a children's book.
Quint and Trout's Mistake gets a 0 out of 5 from me. What a vile story!
*
Densus
Densus is a boy who was born with blue fingernails and blue streaks in his hair. This is because he has a destiny to fulfill. When a crab named Arnold asks him if he'd go tell a giant that he has found a perfect wife for him, Densus agrees because it's his destiny even if there's a possibility the giant could kill him.
This is a story about destinies. It lets us know that we all have destinies if only we weren't too busy trying to find out what they are. This is a fun story which I think children would love! I loved Arnold the crab!! I think a majority of children would love him.
Again, there's a few punctuation and grammar mistakes but nothing major.
I'd give Densus a 5 out of 5.
*
Alice's Granddaughter
Alice's Granddaughter takes place years after Alice in Wonderland. Alice's granddaughter, Alicia, is recruited by a thief named Cheng to go down into a rabbit hole to get him a yellow dragon. Alicia discovers that things in Wonderland haven't changed much.
I thoroughly enjoyed this story! I'm a sucker for everything Alice in Wonderland-esque, and this was no exception! I loved how the author still managed to preserve the original Wonderland in his tale and how he even managed to keep the style of writing similar to that of Lewis Carroll. My favorite character was definitely the talking table. My only gripe is that I wish this story would've been longer!
As like with the previous story, there are some punctuation and grammar mistakes that can be overlooked.
Alice's Granddaughter gets a bit 5 out of 5.
*
The Dragon
The Dragon is a story about death. In this story, we follow a dragon in her very last moments as she dies of what I assume to be old age. We get to see her memories of when she was her prime and when she takes her last breath.
This is a sad story and probably one for the older children unless younger children can handle the topic of death. It's not written in a morbid way though. It's actually written quite beautifully especially when we get to see the memory of the dragon in her prime. I think this story can show that death is not always bad.
There are grammar and punctuation mistakes but nothing that deters from the story.
The Dragon gets a 3.75 out of 5.
*
The Wisdom of a Dog
The Wisdom of a Dog is about a man named Keith and his dog who go on an adventure and wind up in a crystal city. Keith must found out who is destroying the city and save it.
This story was a good read, and I think most children would enjoy it especially as it involves a talking dog. I enjoyed how the author even placed his own dialogue in the story. This is a good versus bad story that shows that bad people never win.
Again, there are grammar and punctuation mistakes, but it doesn't take away from the story.
The Wisdom of a Dog gets a 3.5 out of 5.
*
The Exalted Gate by Daniel Nanavati averages out to a 3.5 out of 5. I'd definitely recommend this book to old and young alike!
(I received a free physical copy of this title from the publisher in exchange for a fair and honest review).
I absolutely love the cover of this book. It is gorgeous!! Anyway, this book has ten stories in it, so I will review and rate each one individually.
*
Boots
Judith (of an undisclosed age) is a girl that hates wearing shoes. However, she is in a play where she has to play a Polish tramp. She doesn't want to wear shoes, but the director says even tramps wear shoes. She finds some beat up looking boots in the prop room and puts them on. As soon as they are on her feet, it's like they have a mind of their own. They take Judith where they want to go. What ensues in an adventure that Judith won't soon forget.
I thought the story of Boots was a really cute and interesting read. I definitely think this will appeal to children of all ages. The only slight problem was with punctuation, but that's nothing that major. Judith is an interesting girl. I'd recommend this story.
I'd give Boots a 4.5 out of 5.
*
Five Gifts
Lonia is a thirteen year old girl whose parents are already nagging her to get married. (Yeah, it's a bit much, but it does say in the story that this was way back in the day). She'd rather spend her days in the children's glade talking to her elf friend, Pintak. One day, Pintak is kidnapped by a mean old wizard, and Lonia decides that she must go rescue him. She is given five gifts from different creatures of the forest to help her on her quest.
I was impressed with this story, and I found it quite interesting. There's also a lesson to be learned about experimenting on animals. Lonia was definitely a brave little girl and was willing to risk everything to save her friend. There are a few punctuation mistakes and a mispelt word, but other than that, this story was a good one.
I'd give Five Gifts a 5 out of 5.
*
Sintinko
Sintinko is a story set in Japan back when it was all emperors and generals. The emperor is jealous of Sintinko and wants to have him killed. It's only because of Ilyo, Sintinko's love interest, that the emperor spares his life. However, Sintinko is banished from Japan until he can find a maple tree that can sit in the hand of the emperor. Ilyo and Sintinko know that they will most likely never see each other. Unbeknownst to Sintinko and everyone else, Ilyo disguises herself as a geisha to help Sintinko on his journey. Love and loss are the themes of this story.
This was such a bittersweet love story. I felt sorry for both Sintinko and Ilyo. Sintinko thought he would never see his beloved again and swore off any type of relationship. Ilyo had her beloved right there in front of her, yet she couldn't do anything about it.
The names, being Japanese, were a bit hard to pronounce, but it's easy to get past that since the story is so strong. Speaking of names, this story even lets us know how the Bonsai tree got its name.
There's a few punctuation mistakes, but nothing that takes away from the story.
I think this story would be better suited for ages 11+. Personally, I found the story a bit slow, but not painfully slow.
I'd give Sintinko a 3.5 out of 5.
*
Tivurambhat
Tivurambhat is the story of a ghost by the same name of the title who helps people out in times of need in India. A mean man forces people to work for him by letting them borrow money, putting the interest up, and paying them such low wages they can never afford to pay him pack. One man decides to do something about it and goes to Tivurambhat for help.
I loved the message behind the story. Towards the ending, it even had me smiling. I couldn't pronounce the names since they were all Indian names, so I just shortened them so my American self could pronounce them. I loved the character of Tiv. He kind of reminded me of an American version of Casper for some reason. I really enjoyed the conversation between Pradesh and Tiv the most. This was such a happy story!
Again, there's some punctuation mistakes and a few grammar ones as well, but the story itself was excellent.
I'd give Tivurambhat a 5 out of 5.
*
St. Penalyn's Well
St Penalyn's Well tells the story of Rebecca (of an undisclosed age) who ventures into an overgrown garden with her dog. She stumbles across a well with an inscription. It is while reading this inscription that she becomes trapped in the well. Lucky for her, she meets an elf named Opickle who keeps her company and gives her the inspiration she needs to find her way out.
This was definitely an interesting story. I was hooked all the way through. It's a story about friendship amongst diversity and not giving up. I found Opickle to be just a tad bit of a snob but not enough to put me off the story.
A few punctuation mistakes throughout the story but not enough to be distracting.
St. Penalyn's Well gets a 5 out of 5 from me.
*
Quint and Trout's Mistake
Quint and Trout's Mistake is a story I didn't finish because of the name calling and making fun of someone who is overweight. It starts out innocently enough. A lake is being overrun by a white smelly substance. Two brothers, Quint and Trout, talk their friend Ned into investigating why this is happening. Ned swims down to the bottom of the lake and finds an overweight creature living in a cave who has been kicked out of his house. This is when the name calling starts, and I stopped reading.
I do not like stories aimed at children that condone name calling of any sort whether it be because of weight, disabilities, race, etc. Children do not need to read something like this and feel bad about themselves or view it as an excuse to tease others. I was very disappointed something like this was in a children's book.
Quint and Trout's Mistake gets a 0 out of 5 from me. What a vile story!
*
Densus
Densus is a boy who was born with blue fingernails and blue streaks in his hair. This is because he has a destiny to fulfill. When a crab named Arnold asks him if he'd go tell a giant that he has found a perfect wife for him, Densus agrees because it's his destiny even if there's a possibility the giant could kill him.
This is a story about destinies. It lets us know that we all have destinies if only we weren't too busy trying to find out what they are. This is a fun story which I think children would love! I loved Arnold the crab!! I think a majority of children would love him.
Again, there's a few punctuation and grammar mistakes but nothing major.
I'd give Densus a 5 out of 5.
*
Alice's Granddaughter
Alice's Granddaughter takes place years after Alice in Wonderland. Alice's granddaughter, Alicia, is recruited by a thief named Cheng to go down into a rabbit hole to get him a yellow dragon. Alicia discovers that things in Wonderland haven't changed much.
I thoroughly enjoyed this story! I'm a sucker for everything Alice in Wonderland-esque, and this was no exception! I loved how the author still managed to preserve the original Wonderland in his tale and how he even managed to keep the style of writing similar to that of Lewis Carroll. My favorite character was definitely the talking table. My only gripe is that I wish this story would've been longer!
As like with the previous story, there are some punctuation and grammar mistakes that can be overlooked.
Alice's Granddaughter gets a bit 5 out of 5.
*
The Dragon
The Dragon is a story about death. In this story, we follow a dragon in her very last moments as she dies of what I assume to be old age. We get to see her memories of when she was her prime and when she takes her last breath.
This is a sad story and probably one for the older children unless younger children can handle the topic of death. It's not written in a morbid way though. It's actually written quite beautifully especially when we get to see the memory of the dragon in her prime. I think this story can show that death is not always bad.
There are grammar and punctuation mistakes but nothing that deters from the story.
The Dragon gets a 3.75 out of 5.
*
The Wisdom of a Dog
The Wisdom of a Dog is about a man named Keith and his dog who go on an adventure and wind up in a crystal city. Keith must found out who is destroying the city and save it.
This story was a good read, and I think most children would enjoy it especially as it involves a talking dog. I enjoyed how the author even placed his own dialogue in the story. This is a good versus bad story that shows that bad people never win.
Again, there are grammar and punctuation mistakes, but it doesn't take away from the story.
The Wisdom of a Dog gets a 3.5 out of 5.
*
The Exalted Gate by Daniel Nanavati averages out to a 3.5 out of 5. I'd definitely recommend this book to old and young alike!
(I received a free physical copy of this title from the publisher in exchange for a fair and honest review).
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) in Movies
Jun 5, 2019
The Force is strong in this one...
Like so many of us, I had theorised what would happen in this movie based on the influx of teaser trailers online, and I'm happy to say, I was wrong on nearly everything! I like being surprised, and this film was just that. A very pleasant surprise. It's Star Wars, like Star Wars should be. Not too heavy on the CGI, plenty of action interlaced with character-driven dialogue and sub-plots, and yes, someone says "I have a bad feeling about this..." which is just ace!
So, the story. (No spoilers here, promise!) We join the action some 30 years after partying with the Ewoks on Endor. The Empire is no more, yet, like an evil phoenix, The First Order has risen from its ashes and is doing much the same thing—being awful to everyone and trying to rule the galaxy. Same old, same old.
There are plenty of new faces—the three main ones effectively being modern-day retellings of our old favourites. First up is Oscar Isaac's excellent Poe Dameron, who is this year's Han Solo. A hot-shot rebel fighter pilot, with rogue-ish good looks, a cheeky grin, and wise-cracking dialogue.
Then, we have the Stormtrooper with a conscience, played by John Boyega. A really good performance by him, and despite his character’s beginnings, it doesn't take long for you to genuinely care what happens to him. He's this year's Luke Skywalker, definitely.
And finally, there's the mysterious Rey, the tough-as-nails tomboy who's hotter than you first realise, brought to life by the uber-talented, destined-for-great-things, Daisy Ridley. Not much is known about who she is, but she's this year's Princess Leia, without a doubt.
And that was the first thing that really struck a chord with me—how the film acknowledges the original characters, but gives them a twist for the newer, younger audience. The comparisons are immediate and obvious, but they work. Instead of the kick-ass princess, you have the hard-done-by street kid... instead of the teenager dreaming of escaping his dead-end life, you have one who struggles to accept he's not meant for the exciting one he has. Kids today will relate to these things, yet the film manages to keep the essence of what made the main characters from the classic films so memorable.
We also have the new lovable droid, BB-8, who, like R2-D2 so many years ago, unwittingly finds itself with a garbled message in its memory banks, and in the possession of one of our heroes.
In much the same way that Episode IV didn’t hang about getting Darth Vader on the screen, it's not long before we're treated to our first look at the big bad—Kylo Ren. Let's run through the checklist:
• Looks cool wearing black? Check.
• Masked, with scary voice? Check.
• Mean? Check.
So, Mr. Ren starts out doing everything we would expect, which is nice. We know he's working with The First Order, we know he's looking for something... so far, so Star Wars.
The film moves along at a good pace. Plenty of action and fighting, slowed down by great interaction between the main cast where needed. Then we start getting drip-fed the old-timers, which is where the fanboy in you will get really excited. We first get a look of Han Solo and Chewbacca, which we already knew from the trailers, when Han says, "Chewy, we're home." Harrison Ford steps back into the role like putting on an old pair of shoes—a little awkward at first, but you soon remember how comfortable they are, and you're off and running in no time. It's almost like he's not played any other part since 1983 (and after Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I bet sometimes Mr. Ford wishes that were the case!). Accompanied by his long-time friend, he effortlessly goes through the motions as the scoundrel looking to make some money, but always ending up owing someone more than he has.
It's not long before a twist of fate puts him and Chewy alongside our new heroes, and they're on their way to see another familiar face, Princess Leia. Except she's not a Princess anymore, she's the General of the Resistance. I won't say too much about her, as her parts in the film are integral to the main storyline, and I don't want to ruin it. Suffice to say, like any couple reuniting after 30 years, her and Han are a joy to watch on screen together.
I don't want to delve into the storyline too much, because a) you've probably pieced together the gist of it from all the trailers, and b) it's hard to do without telling you things you won't know if you haven't already seen it. So I'll leave it there, but will finish by saying it's a pleasure from start to finish, it cues up the inevitable sequels well, and it does nothing more than what it should do—it gives you a Star Wars experience that leaves you wanting to watch it again the moment it finishes.
So, the downsides. There aren't many, but, for me, there are some. They don't take away from the movie as a whole, but they detracted from the experience enough to make them worth mentioning, so here goes.
Princess/General Leia - I'm sorry, but poor Carrie Fisher has had so much Botox, I genuinely thought it was a different actress when she first appeared on camera. We see her go through an emotional reunion, some heartache, some humorous banter, some thrilling, edge-of-the-seat action, and a nail-biting, jaw-dropping finale... and not once did her expression change! Probably because it couldn't. She's the only one who looked like they were struggling to revive their character, because she didn't look like a natural, older version of herself… she looked like she was trying to be a younger version of herself, and it made me not want to see her as much as other characters.
Kylo Ren - This guy starts out as being awesome. His mask is suitably evil, his voice is menacing, his lightsabre is just brilliant… But then he takes his mask off. He's doing something (which I won't detail, but is another obvious and much-appreciated nod to the film's predecessors) and he just takes off his mask. Now, no disrespect to Adam Driver, but... have you seen Harry Potter? Well, Kylo Ren, without his mask, kinda looks like he's related in some distant, in-bred way, to Neville Longbottom. He continues with his evil gestures and scary intentions, but without the mask, you just kinda think... Really? Am I meant to be scared here? When I was a kid, Darth Vader terrified the hell out of me! This guy... you could probably flush his head and steal his lunch money, if he doesn't force-choke you beforehand.
I think he’s another Hayden Christensen—horribly miscast for an important role that could’ve defined the right actor’s career. Let's hope it doesn't end up ruining it for him. Should've kept the mask on, Kylo!
Captain Phasma - The name might not mean much to casual fans, but I’m referring to the chrome Stormtrooper who has inexplicably developed somewhat of a cult following since their appearance in the trailers. They’re the tall, imposing, assumed leader of the Stormtroopers, and certainly looks the part. However, that part is so insignificant, it’s like it was written in as an after-thought. The character will apparently play a more significant role in later films, but that’s hardly the point. We first see him at the beginning, and they’re all evil and shooty, which is fine. But then we see him only a couple of times after that and, at one point, he’s taken hostage in possibly the most unimposing, least-threatening way imaginable, and he just goes along with it. What the hell?! Oh, and I say “He”, but the character is actually played by a woman—Gwendoline Christie, the tall, sword-wielding blonde from Game of Thrones. Anyway…
The final thing that annoyed me a little bit is tough to talk about, because it's riddled with spoilers. But I shall simply say this: the way a certain character (who I haven't mentioned previously) was handled could've been done so much better than it was. That's it. I'll say no more. Watch the film, then read this again. You'll know what I mean.
So, to sum up. This is a great addition to the franchise, no doubt. But, forgetting it's Star Wars for a moment, it's simply a great film. It provides everything you would want from this genre, and it leaves you wanting more at the end (with a clear indication it's going to provide it at some point in the future). Now go. Enjoy. Even if you don't like Star Wars, it's worth a watch. Though I'm pretty certain after seeing it, you'll want to watch the others.
So, the story. (No spoilers here, promise!) We join the action some 30 years after partying with the Ewoks on Endor. The Empire is no more, yet, like an evil phoenix, The First Order has risen from its ashes and is doing much the same thing—being awful to everyone and trying to rule the galaxy. Same old, same old.
There are plenty of new faces—the three main ones effectively being modern-day retellings of our old favourites. First up is Oscar Isaac's excellent Poe Dameron, who is this year's Han Solo. A hot-shot rebel fighter pilot, with rogue-ish good looks, a cheeky grin, and wise-cracking dialogue.
Then, we have the Stormtrooper with a conscience, played by John Boyega. A really good performance by him, and despite his character’s beginnings, it doesn't take long for you to genuinely care what happens to him. He's this year's Luke Skywalker, definitely.
And finally, there's the mysterious Rey, the tough-as-nails tomboy who's hotter than you first realise, brought to life by the uber-talented, destined-for-great-things, Daisy Ridley. Not much is known about who she is, but she's this year's Princess Leia, without a doubt.
And that was the first thing that really struck a chord with me—how the film acknowledges the original characters, but gives them a twist for the newer, younger audience. The comparisons are immediate and obvious, but they work. Instead of the kick-ass princess, you have the hard-done-by street kid... instead of the teenager dreaming of escaping his dead-end life, you have one who struggles to accept he's not meant for the exciting one he has. Kids today will relate to these things, yet the film manages to keep the essence of what made the main characters from the classic films so memorable.
We also have the new lovable droid, BB-8, who, like R2-D2 so many years ago, unwittingly finds itself with a garbled message in its memory banks, and in the possession of one of our heroes.
In much the same way that Episode IV didn’t hang about getting Darth Vader on the screen, it's not long before we're treated to our first look at the big bad—Kylo Ren. Let's run through the checklist:
• Looks cool wearing black? Check.
• Masked, with scary voice? Check.
• Mean? Check.
So, Mr. Ren starts out doing everything we would expect, which is nice. We know he's working with The First Order, we know he's looking for something... so far, so Star Wars.
The film moves along at a good pace. Plenty of action and fighting, slowed down by great interaction between the main cast where needed. Then we start getting drip-fed the old-timers, which is where the fanboy in you will get really excited. We first get a look of Han Solo and Chewbacca, which we already knew from the trailers, when Han says, "Chewy, we're home." Harrison Ford steps back into the role like putting on an old pair of shoes—a little awkward at first, but you soon remember how comfortable they are, and you're off and running in no time. It's almost like he's not played any other part since 1983 (and after Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I bet sometimes Mr. Ford wishes that were the case!). Accompanied by his long-time friend, he effortlessly goes through the motions as the scoundrel looking to make some money, but always ending up owing someone more than he has.
It's not long before a twist of fate puts him and Chewy alongside our new heroes, and they're on their way to see another familiar face, Princess Leia. Except she's not a Princess anymore, she's the General of the Resistance. I won't say too much about her, as her parts in the film are integral to the main storyline, and I don't want to ruin it. Suffice to say, like any couple reuniting after 30 years, her and Han are a joy to watch on screen together.
I don't want to delve into the storyline too much, because a) you've probably pieced together the gist of it from all the trailers, and b) it's hard to do without telling you things you won't know if you haven't already seen it. So I'll leave it there, but will finish by saying it's a pleasure from start to finish, it cues up the inevitable sequels well, and it does nothing more than what it should do—it gives you a Star Wars experience that leaves you wanting to watch it again the moment it finishes.
So, the downsides. There aren't many, but, for me, there are some. They don't take away from the movie as a whole, but they detracted from the experience enough to make them worth mentioning, so here goes.
Princess/General Leia - I'm sorry, but poor Carrie Fisher has had so much Botox, I genuinely thought it was a different actress when she first appeared on camera. We see her go through an emotional reunion, some heartache, some humorous banter, some thrilling, edge-of-the-seat action, and a nail-biting, jaw-dropping finale... and not once did her expression change! Probably because it couldn't. She's the only one who looked like they were struggling to revive their character, because she didn't look like a natural, older version of herself… she looked like she was trying to be a younger version of herself, and it made me not want to see her as much as other characters.
Kylo Ren - This guy starts out as being awesome. His mask is suitably evil, his voice is menacing, his lightsabre is just brilliant… But then he takes his mask off. He's doing something (which I won't detail, but is another obvious and much-appreciated nod to the film's predecessors) and he just takes off his mask. Now, no disrespect to Adam Driver, but... have you seen Harry Potter? Well, Kylo Ren, without his mask, kinda looks like he's related in some distant, in-bred way, to Neville Longbottom. He continues with his evil gestures and scary intentions, but without the mask, you just kinda think... Really? Am I meant to be scared here? When I was a kid, Darth Vader terrified the hell out of me! This guy... you could probably flush his head and steal his lunch money, if he doesn't force-choke you beforehand.
I think he’s another Hayden Christensen—horribly miscast for an important role that could’ve defined the right actor’s career. Let's hope it doesn't end up ruining it for him. Should've kept the mask on, Kylo!
Captain Phasma - The name might not mean much to casual fans, but I’m referring to the chrome Stormtrooper who has inexplicably developed somewhat of a cult following since their appearance in the trailers. They’re the tall, imposing, assumed leader of the Stormtroopers, and certainly looks the part. However, that part is so insignificant, it’s like it was written in as an after-thought. The character will apparently play a more significant role in later films, but that’s hardly the point. We first see him at the beginning, and they’re all evil and shooty, which is fine. But then we see him only a couple of times after that and, at one point, he’s taken hostage in possibly the most unimposing, least-threatening way imaginable, and he just goes along with it. What the hell?! Oh, and I say “He”, but the character is actually played by a woman—Gwendoline Christie, the tall, sword-wielding blonde from Game of Thrones. Anyway…
The final thing that annoyed me a little bit is tough to talk about, because it's riddled with spoilers. But I shall simply say this: the way a certain character (who I haven't mentioned previously) was handled could've been done so much better than it was. That's it. I'll say no more. Watch the film, then read this again. You'll know what I mean.
So, to sum up. This is a great addition to the franchise, no doubt. But, forgetting it's Star Wars for a moment, it's simply a great film. It provides everything you would want from this genre, and it leaves you wanting more at the end (with a clear indication it's going to provide it at some point in the future). Now go. Enjoy. Even if you don't like Star Wars, it's worth a watch. Though I'm pretty certain after seeing it, you'll want to watch the others.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Man of Steel (2013) in Movies
May 21, 2019
"It's not an s on my world it means hope"
Superman's origin has been retold in comics more than any other character. But how do you reboot such a beloved icon in film form without making his origin feel unnecessary to go through again. By handing him over to the masters of all reboots. While developing the story for The Dark Knight Rises, Director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer developed a new way to bring the man of steel to life. The duo previously saved Batman and made him a cinematic legend again and now they plan to save Superman from uneven sequels and a stale image. And who did they invite to lead this revival? None other than director Zack Snyder, a visual wizard with a lackluster reputation in storytelling thanks to his remake of Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch. Now despite some filmmaking stumbles along the way, the trio make for a surprisingly great combination and deliver the modern Superman film we have waited 75 years for with Man of Steel. We are given both Superman and a Clark Kent who doesn't know his place in the world and is coming to terms with how the public perceives him.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.