Search
Search results
Goldenarrow74 (10 KP) rated My Scientology Movie (2015) in Movies
Jun 3, 2018
Frustrating but still unashamedly Louis
Now this is a good one:
• Scientology fascinates/horrifies me in equal measure
• I love Louis Theroux’s work over the years, from pornstars to neo-nazis
So, if you add together one of the most unassuming yet tenacious investigative journalists and one of the most misunderstood religions and there’s bound to be sparks flying, right?
Well almost. I recall some comments about a Louis documentary where he kinda lost his usual cool and got wound up/ deterred by his would-be interviewees. Perhaps this could be the one.
Even if this is not the film in question, it’s certainly a little more subdued than his usual material. Because the church told him to sod off.
I guess his view that he wants to offer an unbiased and impartial view on their religion is not one shared by David Whatshisface. This is a shame as I’d loved to have seen LT probe the chief scientist with his softly, softly good cop/nicer cop style of interviewing.
It could well have been a titanic battle of intellect and wills. Almost on a parallel with Westley & Vizzini in the Princess Bride. But now we’ll never know.
Seriously, it’s sort of hobbled the film from the start if we don’t get to speak to anyone from the church, as all we are going to here from therefore are people who don’t know about what really happens or do know but have now come out from the protective umbrella of Scientology and are (quite reasonably) regarded as “embittered”.
Even Louis is being asked a lot to conjure something truly worthwhile with his only evidence coming from potentially biased sources.
It’s only at the hour mark that we even hear of the charitable causes the church supports, from drug abuse to disaster relief. And not long before that we even see a very limited glimpse of the drills, or ‘tech’ that forms part of the Scientologist’s belief system.
What makes me laugh, disappointedly, is that Louis is complaining that the lawyers are accusing him of dwelling on those embittered “squirrels”.... when that’s exactly what he has been doing, out of necessity as he has no other material.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt to LT whenever possible but I think he dropped a bollock there.
I also wonder if the reason we are only given such a brief example of the dianetics system is that the Church’s powerful tentacles reach all the way to the Beeb? I’ve always though that Jeremy Paxman had a steely determination that came from more than just political vigour...
Or maybe it’s because Louis didn’t think it was important enough? Hardly. Maybe because Marty Rathbun got upset and stopped doing it (incidentally he is a crap teacher! Getting visibly disappointed when the student doesn’t immediately see/feel/get what you intend is not the way to help relax and convince someone).
It was slightly disappointing to not see Isaac Hayes who left South Park in a strop because they were planning an episode on Scientology - when he had no problem participating in storylines concerning paedophilia, terrorism, Satan & Saddam Hussein having sex etc..
I jest, of course. And that’s obviously a mistake as it’s abundantly clear that Scientologists have no sense of humour whatsoever. I’m going to be constantly scanning my rear view mirror for a large, clumsily driven Toyota 4x4 now. That won’t stand out at all in the small towns of rural Buckinghamshire will it?
• Scientology fascinates/horrifies me in equal measure
• I love Louis Theroux’s work over the years, from pornstars to neo-nazis
So, if you add together one of the most unassuming yet tenacious investigative journalists and one of the most misunderstood religions and there’s bound to be sparks flying, right?
Well almost. I recall some comments about a Louis documentary where he kinda lost his usual cool and got wound up/ deterred by his would-be interviewees. Perhaps this could be the one.
Even if this is not the film in question, it’s certainly a little more subdued than his usual material. Because the church told him to sod off.
I guess his view that he wants to offer an unbiased and impartial view on their religion is not one shared by David Whatshisface. This is a shame as I’d loved to have seen LT probe the chief scientist with his softly, softly good cop/nicer cop style of interviewing.
It could well have been a titanic battle of intellect and wills. Almost on a parallel with Westley & Vizzini in the Princess Bride. But now we’ll never know.
Seriously, it’s sort of hobbled the film from the start if we don’t get to speak to anyone from the church, as all we are going to here from therefore are people who don’t know about what really happens or do know but have now come out from the protective umbrella of Scientology and are (quite reasonably) regarded as “embittered”.
Even Louis is being asked a lot to conjure something truly worthwhile with his only evidence coming from potentially biased sources.
It’s only at the hour mark that we even hear of the charitable causes the church supports, from drug abuse to disaster relief. And not long before that we even see a very limited glimpse of the drills, or ‘tech’ that forms part of the Scientologist’s belief system.
What makes me laugh, disappointedly, is that Louis is complaining that the lawyers are accusing him of dwelling on those embittered “squirrels”.... when that’s exactly what he has been doing, out of necessity as he has no other material.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt to LT whenever possible but I think he dropped a bollock there.
I also wonder if the reason we are only given such a brief example of the dianetics system is that the Church’s powerful tentacles reach all the way to the Beeb? I’ve always though that Jeremy Paxman had a steely determination that came from more than just political vigour...
Or maybe it’s because Louis didn’t think it was important enough? Hardly. Maybe because Marty Rathbun got upset and stopped doing it (incidentally he is a crap teacher! Getting visibly disappointed when the student doesn’t immediately see/feel/get what you intend is not the way to help relax and convince someone).
It was slightly disappointing to not see Isaac Hayes who left South Park in a strop because they were planning an episode on Scientology - when he had no problem participating in storylines concerning paedophilia, terrorism, Satan & Saddam Hussein having sex etc..
I jest, of course. And that’s obviously a mistake as it’s abundantly clear that Scientologists have no sense of humour whatsoever. I’m going to be constantly scanning my rear view mirror for a large, clumsily driven Toyota 4x4 now. That won’t stand out at all in the small towns of rural Buckinghamshire will it?
Anna Marie Green (7 KP) rated the Xbox One version of Monster Hunter World in Video Games
Jul 3, 2018 (Updated Jul 3, 2018)
Fantastic Gameplay Possibilities (4 more)
Intelligent Monster AI
Climbing Difficulty
Good Community Management
It's Damn Good Fun (If you have $30, buy it.)
Feels Incomplete (2 more)
Experienced Players Lack Challenge
Mediocre Story
Monster Hunter, One Year Later
Monster Hunter: World was Capcom's fiest big success in the Western market. After years of cult status on the DS, they finally broke through to the world of consoles and had so much success that they dubbed MH:W their benchmark for future games.
But should they?
MH:W is, at its core, is a dungeon crawler designed to feel open-world within its own constraints. With beautiful environments such as the Coral Highlands and the toxic areas festering beneath the Rotten Vale, MHW looks and feels much more massive than the trodden paths you follow. Your first hunts feel thrilling as you take different paths to chase your limping prey, and a cycle of different weather, monsters, and endemic life keep you invested in immersion.
But after hunting a tempered Nergigante for the 20th time, things do begin to fall out of place. You experience the malaise of a Saitama-like hero. Have you become too strong?
Challenging fights become the norm. The occasional arch-tempered monster appears, but scaled damage isn't always the same thing as new difficulty.
In the handheld games, there were dozens of monsters with distinct abilities and variations. MH: Generations had 73 large monsters to hunt. You could even play as a palico.
But that variety just isn't in MH:W.
Granted, the game is an experiment and has provided some good content for no extra cost to the players, which is a feat of its own in comparison to all the other big game developers (EA, Microsoft, Square Enix, Bethesda). They also do an excellent job managing weekly challenges and encouraging community between players. Kulve Taroth hunts were a blast and the free meal in the Hub was an excellent bribe.
MH:W still needs more monsters and at least one new environment. Since its release in January 2018, only three monsters have been added to the game: Deviljho, Kulve Taroth, and Lunastra. Behemoth from Final Fantasy is also making an appearance this July. That's a monster every two months. Don't get me wrong here— that's a fair schedule for content release. Overwatch clocks in at about three months for every hero, so two months is a respectable jog for the quality of the quality of the game. Still, even Overwatch -with it's full player-controlled roster- can become a bit of a slog without those regular updates.
The easiest fix? Capcom needs to finally add in G-Ranks with weapon rarities 9 and 10, and the terrifying monsters to match. The other MH games have generally had these ranks, and the MH:W G updates have been teasing us in rumors since the release, yet we haven't seen any evidence of their existence. A massive content update containing new unique weapons trees, rarity 8 varieties of dead-end trees, armor transmogs, new endemic life and monsters, better armor designs, and more material choices... Capcom has incredible potential on their table that could rekindle gamers' interest in helping the Fifth solve the new mysteries of the New World.
Or, god forbid, suffer the gamers by making them by Monster Hunter: World 2 just to feel like they actually completed the first game.
But should they?
MH:W is, at its core, is a dungeon crawler designed to feel open-world within its own constraints. With beautiful environments such as the Coral Highlands and the toxic areas festering beneath the Rotten Vale, MHW looks and feels much more massive than the trodden paths you follow. Your first hunts feel thrilling as you take different paths to chase your limping prey, and a cycle of different weather, monsters, and endemic life keep you invested in immersion.
But after hunting a tempered Nergigante for the 20th time, things do begin to fall out of place. You experience the malaise of a Saitama-like hero. Have you become too strong?
Challenging fights become the norm. The occasional arch-tempered monster appears, but scaled damage isn't always the same thing as new difficulty.
In the handheld games, there were dozens of monsters with distinct abilities and variations. MH: Generations had 73 large monsters to hunt. You could even play as a palico.
But that variety just isn't in MH:W.
Granted, the game is an experiment and has provided some good content for no extra cost to the players, which is a feat of its own in comparison to all the other big game developers (EA, Microsoft, Square Enix, Bethesda). They also do an excellent job managing weekly challenges and encouraging community between players. Kulve Taroth hunts were a blast and the free meal in the Hub was an excellent bribe.
MH:W still needs more monsters and at least one new environment. Since its release in January 2018, only three monsters have been added to the game: Deviljho, Kulve Taroth, and Lunastra. Behemoth from Final Fantasy is also making an appearance this July. That's a monster every two months. Don't get me wrong here— that's a fair schedule for content release. Overwatch clocks in at about three months for every hero, so two months is a respectable jog for the quality of the quality of the game. Still, even Overwatch -with it's full player-controlled roster- can become a bit of a slog without those regular updates.
The easiest fix? Capcom needs to finally add in G-Ranks with weapon rarities 9 and 10, and the terrifying monsters to match. The other MH games have generally had these ranks, and the MH:W G updates have been teasing us in rumors since the release, yet we haven't seen any evidence of their existence. A massive content update containing new unique weapons trees, rarity 8 varieties of dead-end trees, armor transmogs, new endemic life and monsters, better armor designs, and more material choices... Capcom has incredible potential on their table that could rekindle gamers' interest in helping the Fifth solve the new mysteries of the New World.
Or, god forbid, suffer the gamers by making them by Monster Hunter: World 2 just to feel like they actually completed the first game.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams starts by Mayor Buckman (Mosely) explaining why they are out for vengeances where they town of Pleasant Valley lost 2001 residents in the 1800s. When the deal with a local Sheriff is getting pushed to the limits Buckman makes sure his maniacs are safe. This leads to them going on tour to get the people from the north. We then meet High society sister Rome (Johnson) and Tina (Hope) part of Road Rascal reality show going to the south. After their camper gets run off the crashes they get stuck in the middle of nowhere where they bump into the Pleasant Valley community.
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Re-Animator (1985) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Herbert West is no ordinary doctor. He's brilliant and obviously knows quite a bit about the field of medicine, but something is peculiar about him. He acts strangely and tends to keep to himself while getting absorbed into his work. Throughout his research, Dr. West may have finally perfected his serum. A serum that brings the dead back to life. The consequences of the serum are hectic, as expected. The sooner the serum is injected into a fresh corpse in comparison to one that's been lying around for a few hours, the better the results. Based on the H.P. Lovecraft tale, Herbert West-Reanimator, West finds himself at a medical college when his stint in Switzerland ends a bit abruptly. There he meets Dan Cain, a student at the college who is held in high regard, and Dan's girlfriend, Meg, whose father is the dean to the medical college. When Dan puts a notice up looking for a roommate in his dorm, West comes knocking. Things seem to be a constant downward spiral from there as West continues his research and the bodies begin to pile up.
Re-Animator is one of the few cult classics that I'll stick up for. I usually wind up feeling like most classic horror films that are recommended or held in such high regard aren't good at all or are extremely overrated. This film is a lot of fun though. It's definitely got its campy qualities with a headless corpse stumbling around the third act of the film, but it doesn't feel out of place for a film built around a concoction that's injected into the brain to bring corpses back from the dead. The music, especially the opening theme, tends to get a bad wrap because it blatantly rips off (or pays homage, depending on how you look at it) the Psycho score. While the similarities are crystal clear once they're heard, I honestly didn't mind it. It's kind of hard to imagine this film with different music, so I have no complaints.
The Herbert West role really fits Jeffrey Combs like a glove. His attraction to weird and quirky roles pretty much began with films like this one. As West's unusual personality is revealed throughout the film, you can't help but get a sense of uneasiness as his character traits unravel before your very eyes. The best example is when West brings Dan's cat Rufus back to life. After it's been killed for the second time, Dan is shocked to discover it's Rufus and turns to look at West. West points at the cat and tells Dan to, "Look out!" Dan quickly turns his attention back to poor Rufus, who's still lying there motionless. West begins to burst into maniacal laughter as Dan looks on in horror. With the upcoming remake on the horizon, it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role of Herbert West especially with Jeffrey Combs confirmed for a cameo.
While Re-Animator could definitely be considered cheesy and campy at times, its strengths outweigh its flaws. The story is simple, but tends to unfold nicely and the acting is solid (David Gale as Dr. Hill is up for debate though). The film is pretty much exactly what you would expect a horror film to be like from the eighties; gory, cheesy, tons of nudity and sex, and a few creative twists along the way. And when it comes to horror, what else could you really ask for?
Re-Animator is one of the few cult classics that I'll stick up for. I usually wind up feeling like most classic horror films that are recommended or held in such high regard aren't good at all or are extremely overrated. This film is a lot of fun though. It's definitely got its campy qualities with a headless corpse stumbling around the third act of the film, but it doesn't feel out of place for a film built around a concoction that's injected into the brain to bring corpses back from the dead. The music, especially the opening theme, tends to get a bad wrap because it blatantly rips off (or pays homage, depending on how you look at it) the Psycho score. While the similarities are crystal clear once they're heard, I honestly didn't mind it. It's kind of hard to imagine this film with different music, so I have no complaints.
The Herbert West role really fits Jeffrey Combs like a glove. His attraction to weird and quirky roles pretty much began with films like this one. As West's unusual personality is revealed throughout the film, you can't help but get a sense of uneasiness as his character traits unravel before your very eyes. The best example is when West brings Dan's cat Rufus back to life. After it's been killed for the second time, Dan is shocked to discover it's Rufus and turns to look at West. West points at the cat and tells Dan to, "Look out!" Dan quickly turns his attention back to poor Rufus, who's still lying there motionless. West begins to burst into maniacal laughter as Dan looks on in horror. With the upcoming remake on the horizon, it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role of Herbert West especially with Jeffrey Combs confirmed for a cameo.
While Re-Animator could definitely be considered cheesy and campy at times, its strengths outweigh its flaws. The story is simple, but tends to unfold nicely and the acting is solid (David Gale as Dr. Hill is up for debate though). The film is pretty much exactly what you would expect a horror film to be like from the eighties; gory, cheesy, tons of nudity and sex, and a few creative twists along the way. And when it comes to horror, what else could you really ask for?
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Girl Behind the Red Rope in Books
Oct 15, 2019
I'm a fan of dystopian novels, so when I heard about The Girl Behind the Red Rope by Ted Dekker and Rachelle Dekker, I knew it was a book that I just had to read sooner rather than later. Everything about the synopsis was calling out my name. Luckily, this book lived up to the hype.
As I stated previously, the synopsis of The Girl Behind the Red Rope definitely left me intrigued. Grace has seen what not following her religious community's strict rules can bring. However, when a young boy makes his way into their tight community, Grace begins to question everything she's been taught which puts her in extreme danger.
Everything flowed so smoothly including the pacing which never let me down. I was constantly finding excuses to finish reading The Girl Behind the Red Rope since I had to know what would happen next. While I felt the plot was predictable more often than not, I still really enjoyed this book. I felt like their were no cliff hangers, and all of my questions were answered by the ending.
As for the Christian aspect of this book, it didn't read like a Christian novel most of the way through. I'd say it was probably around the last quarter of the book where Christianity came into play. I didn't think it was overly preachy although I think that those who aren't very spiritual or who are agnostic or are atheist may feel it's a tad on the preachy side. I would say The Girl Behind the Red Rope is more anti-religion and pro-Christianity overall. That's what I took from it anyway. It does have a really good message regarding love though which I found really nice to read about.
I very much enjoyed how every character in The Girl Behind the Red Rope was written. I felt like I was actually part of their world, stuck in the same community with them. Grace is a very likable character. I loved how the characters made her feel like a real person by giving her the conflicting thoughts as to who was to be believed throughout the novel. I enjoyed Grace's thought process about everything throughout the book. While I knew who and what she should choose, it was easy to see why she was so torn. Bobbie and Sylous were both very intriguing characters. I never trusted Sylous from the start, but Bobbie was one character that I wasn't sure if she actually had Grace's best interest at heart or if she had ulterior motives. There were times I despised Rose, not because she wasn't written poorly, in fact, she was written perfectly, but because of how much trust she put into Sylous and how overly judgmental she could be sometimes. I know that Rose was only going on what she thought to be true, but there were just so many times I wanted Rose to disappear! My favorite character was Eli. I loved his innocence and how happy go lucky he was.
Trigger warnings for The Girl Behind the Red Rope include cult mentality, violence, and murder.
All in all, The Girl Behind the Red Rope is such a fantastic read with such a powerful message. The characters are written beautifully, and the plot is done superbly. I would definitely recommend The Girl Behind the Red Rope by Ted Dekker and Rachelle Dekker to those aged 15+. Christians will definitely enjoy this book, but I think even non-Christians will probably love it as well.
As I stated previously, the synopsis of The Girl Behind the Red Rope definitely left me intrigued. Grace has seen what not following her religious community's strict rules can bring. However, when a young boy makes his way into their tight community, Grace begins to question everything she's been taught which puts her in extreme danger.
Everything flowed so smoothly including the pacing which never let me down. I was constantly finding excuses to finish reading The Girl Behind the Red Rope since I had to know what would happen next. While I felt the plot was predictable more often than not, I still really enjoyed this book. I felt like their were no cliff hangers, and all of my questions were answered by the ending.
As for the Christian aspect of this book, it didn't read like a Christian novel most of the way through. I'd say it was probably around the last quarter of the book where Christianity came into play. I didn't think it was overly preachy although I think that those who aren't very spiritual or who are agnostic or are atheist may feel it's a tad on the preachy side. I would say The Girl Behind the Red Rope is more anti-religion and pro-Christianity overall. That's what I took from it anyway. It does have a really good message regarding love though which I found really nice to read about.
I very much enjoyed how every character in The Girl Behind the Red Rope was written. I felt like I was actually part of their world, stuck in the same community with them. Grace is a very likable character. I loved how the characters made her feel like a real person by giving her the conflicting thoughts as to who was to be believed throughout the novel. I enjoyed Grace's thought process about everything throughout the book. While I knew who and what she should choose, it was easy to see why she was so torn. Bobbie and Sylous were both very intriguing characters. I never trusted Sylous from the start, but Bobbie was one character that I wasn't sure if she actually had Grace's best interest at heart or if she had ulterior motives. There were times I despised Rose, not because she wasn't written poorly, in fact, she was written perfectly, but because of how much trust she put into Sylous and how overly judgmental she could be sometimes. I know that Rose was only going on what she thought to be true, but there were just so many times I wanted Rose to disappear! My favorite character was Eli. I loved his innocence and how happy go lucky he was.
Trigger warnings for The Girl Behind the Red Rope include cult mentality, violence, and murder.
All in all, The Girl Behind the Red Rope is such a fantastic read with such a powerful message. The characters are written beautifully, and the plot is done superbly. I would definitely recommend The Girl Behind the Red Rope by Ted Dekker and Rachelle Dekker to those aged 15+. Christians will definitely enjoy this book, but I think even non-Christians will probably love it as well.
JT (287 KP) rated The Avengers (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
As the dust settles on a film that has seriously ‘hulk smashed’ the box office its clear to see why this film has been met with such high acclaim from critics and fans alike. There is no getting away from the fact that this is one hell of a blockbuster, with more superheroes than you can cram into a S.H.I.E.L.D. meeting room and a villain that almost stole the whole show, it had pretty much everything.
The film opens as S.H.I.E.L.D. is mid evacuation after The Tesseract, an energy source of unknown potential, has activated. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has plans to take over the world with a strong army and have everyone kneel before him, he’s cunning but “lacks conviction” as is pointed out by cult fan favourite Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg).
So, Nick Fury activates the Avengers initiative, pulling resource from Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, Hawkeye and of course Bruce Banner in order to stop the impending attack. The good thing about the Avengers is that no time needs to be spent setting the characters up, as given the previous films we know all about them and their powers. However, this gives more time for them to decipher each others egos.
Tony Stark feels like the team’s unofficial leader, brash and bold he has to contend with a number of personalities, remember he doesn’t play well with others. A great scene sees Thor, Captain America and Iron Man all come to blows but its hard to say if there was any clear winner.
Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow and Clint ‘Hawkeye’ Barton who have popped up in previous films but neither had their own title struggle at times to fit in, but they are integral to the group and plot. However if there were not part of the assemble you wouldn’t miss them too much.
As for Bruce Banner, Weadon’s Hulk is probably the most realistic CGI transformation to date. Ang Lee’s looked ridiculous and Louis Leterrier’s Hulk looked liked he’d been pumped full of steroids as opposed to gamma radiation.
Weadon though achieved a great balance and with Mark Ruffalo stepping in as the green monster the Hulk had a lot of charisma in this, even having time for some humour. T.V. original big man Lou Ferrigno provided the voice so it all seemed like the Hulk was back.
The perfect villain – Loki
Hiddleston for me though was the stand-out here, as comic book villains go he brought so much to the role. It was a dark, composed and at times sinister portrayal of a man desperate for revenge and to be worshipped like the god he feels he deserves to be.
The films action sequences are second to none, with everything from the initial opening evacuation at S.H.I.E.L.D. to the climactic ending all choreographed to perfection. The only gripe is that it boarder lines on Transformers styled destruction, in which some parts are drawn out. I mean just how many Chitauri can one group of superheroes fend off?
Another post credits scene certainly would pave the way for a sequel, and given the film’s massive haul which is well in excess of $450m no one would stand in the way. It should pretty much be a forgone conclusion that the team will at some point reunite.
The film opens as S.H.I.E.L.D. is mid evacuation after The Tesseract, an energy source of unknown potential, has activated. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) has plans to take over the world with a strong army and have everyone kneel before him, he’s cunning but “lacks conviction” as is pointed out by cult fan favourite Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg).
So, Nick Fury activates the Avengers initiative, pulling resource from Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, Hawkeye and of course Bruce Banner in order to stop the impending attack. The good thing about the Avengers is that no time needs to be spent setting the characters up, as given the previous films we know all about them and their powers. However, this gives more time for them to decipher each others egos.
Tony Stark feels like the team’s unofficial leader, brash and bold he has to contend with a number of personalities, remember he doesn’t play well with others. A great scene sees Thor, Captain America and Iron Man all come to blows but its hard to say if there was any clear winner.
Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow and Clint ‘Hawkeye’ Barton who have popped up in previous films but neither had their own title struggle at times to fit in, but they are integral to the group and plot. However if there were not part of the assemble you wouldn’t miss them too much.
As for Bruce Banner, Weadon’s Hulk is probably the most realistic CGI transformation to date. Ang Lee’s looked ridiculous and Louis Leterrier’s Hulk looked liked he’d been pumped full of steroids as opposed to gamma radiation.
Weadon though achieved a great balance and with Mark Ruffalo stepping in as the green monster the Hulk had a lot of charisma in this, even having time for some humour. T.V. original big man Lou Ferrigno provided the voice so it all seemed like the Hulk was back.
The perfect villain – Loki
Hiddleston for me though was the stand-out here, as comic book villains go he brought so much to the role. It was a dark, composed and at times sinister portrayal of a man desperate for revenge and to be worshipped like the god he feels he deserves to be.
The films action sequences are second to none, with everything from the initial opening evacuation at S.H.I.E.L.D. to the climactic ending all choreographed to perfection. The only gripe is that it boarder lines on Transformers styled destruction, in which some parts are drawn out. I mean just how many Chitauri can one group of superheroes fend off?
Another post credits scene certainly would pave the way for a sequel, and given the film’s massive haul which is well in excess of $450m no one would stand in the way. It should pretty much be a forgone conclusion that the team will at some point reunite.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In 2009, writer/director by Tommy Wirkola gained a cult following with his Zombie splatter film “Dead Snow”. Hollywood took notice and he was awarded with a larger budget and bigger stars for his follow up film “Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters”. The film chronicles the fairytale brother and sister duo after they escaped the gingerbread house and started hunting down witches. Originally supposed to be released in 2012, the film was pushed back to a January 2013 release in hopes of generating more buzz on Jeremy Renner’s rising star. When the film was complete, Renner had yet to appear in last year’s films “The Avengers” and “The Bourne Legacy”. A good strategy, if the standard TV trailers did not make this movie look worse than it actually is.
I have to be honest. I went into this movie expecting it to be terrible. Personally I do not have much faith in Renner (Hansel) as a leading man. I know he is somewhat hot right now but to me he is best as a supporting role. I also have only seen Gemma Arterton (Gretel) in “Clash of the Titans” (2010) where she was nothing more than a pretty face in that lack luster film. Perhaps it was because of such low expectations that together they worked. They were both “bad ass” as the brother sister bounty hunters. Not spectacular performances or anything but easily entertaining and likeable performances.
The story follows the duo as they attempt to hunt down some missing children form a small village that is troubled by witches. Famke Janssen (Taken 2) leads the supporting cast as Leader of the witches who is trying to cast a spell that will make the witches stronger than ever. The three clash it out and that is basically the story.
From a stylistic standpoint fans of Wirkola’s films will not be disappointed. The dark and grim fairytale world he creates is charming and helps us fall into the fantasy. Furthermore this film has several gruesome scenes that are shockingly comical in the way they are over the top. At no point do they feel unnecessary for shock value, but rather they happen in a way that seems normal and plausible in the world we are shown on film. Additionally the pacing of this film is fast. There was not a dull moment as the 88 minute run time is one action or story driven transition to the next. Together these aspects help the film feel fun, lighthearted and surprisingly entertaining. Also the 3D effects help the film and do not seem distracting.
The finished product accomplishes something that other fast paced ridiculous action flicks do not. It keeps it simple. Tommy Wirkola shows his talent by keeping various stylistic factors and pacing together in a way that makes the simplistic story complete. Often times in films like this there comes a point where your suspended disbelief is tested beyond its limits. But that is not the case here. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters delivers an entertaining fast paced movie that the TV previews do not to justice. If you are a fan of zombies, vampires, witches or any other supernatural type characters then you will not want to miss this film.
I have to be honest. I went into this movie expecting it to be terrible. Personally I do not have much faith in Renner (Hansel) as a leading man. I know he is somewhat hot right now but to me he is best as a supporting role. I also have only seen Gemma Arterton (Gretel) in “Clash of the Titans” (2010) where she was nothing more than a pretty face in that lack luster film. Perhaps it was because of such low expectations that together they worked. They were both “bad ass” as the brother sister bounty hunters. Not spectacular performances or anything but easily entertaining and likeable performances.
The story follows the duo as they attempt to hunt down some missing children form a small village that is troubled by witches. Famke Janssen (Taken 2) leads the supporting cast as Leader of the witches who is trying to cast a spell that will make the witches stronger than ever. The three clash it out and that is basically the story.
From a stylistic standpoint fans of Wirkola’s films will not be disappointed. The dark and grim fairytale world he creates is charming and helps us fall into the fantasy. Furthermore this film has several gruesome scenes that are shockingly comical in the way they are over the top. At no point do they feel unnecessary for shock value, but rather they happen in a way that seems normal and plausible in the world we are shown on film. Additionally the pacing of this film is fast. There was not a dull moment as the 88 minute run time is one action or story driven transition to the next. Together these aspects help the film feel fun, lighthearted and surprisingly entertaining. Also the 3D effects help the film and do not seem distracting.
The finished product accomplishes something that other fast paced ridiculous action flicks do not. It keeps it simple. Tommy Wirkola shows his talent by keeping various stylistic factors and pacing together in a way that makes the simplistic story complete. Often times in films like this there comes a point where your suspended disbelief is tested beyond its limits. But that is not the case here. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters delivers an entertaining fast paced movie that the TV previews do not to justice. If you are a fan of zombies, vampires, witches or any other supernatural type characters then you will not want to miss this film.
In An Open Field by Nicholas Krgovich
Album Watch
This record could just as easily be called "In A Sunny South Pasadena Living Room" or "In A...
pop
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Darren (1599 KP) rated St. Agatha (2018) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Characters – Mary is a pregnant young lady with a tragic past which saw her running from her abusive father, she seeks refuge to have her child, which sees her in a convent, only for this to be a worse hell than her previous life, she is stuck with the abusive religious nuns that want her baby, even renaming her Agatha. Mother Superior runs the convent, she has strict rules and expects the women to follow these rules or face punishment, she does however want the children to be born, which means the punishments won’t put the babies at risks, she has women under her control, but when it comes to Mary she must go to new extremes to keep her position of power in place. Catherine is one of the few women that offers Mary any help within the walls, she is also pregnant further along than Mary, meaning the two teaming up would mean more risk for her. We do have other girls that are under different levels of control, while we also have other nuns who are trying to prove their level of strictness to the Mother Superior.
Performances – Sabrina Kern in the leading role is great to watch, she brings the broken figure and shows us just how determined she is to make the most out of her life with her child. Carolyn Hennessy does bring us the strict figure required for her role which will show how capable to she to take control of the scenes through the film. the rest of the cast do a solid job throughout, they each get their moment to shine in the film’s story too.
Story – The story follows a young woman who seeks refuge in a convent to help her have her child only to find the convent is being controlled by nuns that don’t always follow the bible when it comes to helping the young women that come to them for help. With this story we do get to give until the personal life of Mary that does have a tragic past and does show how far she has had to go to fix the problems in her life. The main focus is on the convent which does keep us guessing to what the Mother Superior will do next because they want the babies and can’t risk damaging them, but do need to punish the women. We do get elements of the theme around the idea of cults which does play an important factor in just where the film ends up going. We also have women at different stages of pregnancy which shows us and Mary just what will happen to her if she stays.
Horror – The horror in the film follows the events in the convent, we get a mix of hauntings and torture, which are only making Mary look like she is losing her mind.
Settings – The film is set in the convent, we get to see how the locked doors keep people in and just how they are going to be forcing the woman to follow the rules.
Special Effects – The effects in this film are used to show the injuries which aren’t as graphic as they could have been, though they imply horrific injuries given.
Scene of the Movie – The baby is coming.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It could have gone a lot darker that is does go.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough horror that uses the themes of religious cults to make the horror seem more realistic and shocking.
Overall: Religious Cult 101
Performances – Sabrina Kern in the leading role is great to watch, she brings the broken figure and shows us just how determined she is to make the most out of her life with her child. Carolyn Hennessy does bring us the strict figure required for her role which will show how capable to she to take control of the scenes through the film. the rest of the cast do a solid job throughout, they each get their moment to shine in the film’s story too.
Story – The story follows a young woman who seeks refuge in a convent to help her have her child only to find the convent is being controlled by nuns that don’t always follow the bible when it comes to helping the young women that come to them for help. With this story we do get to give until the personal life of Mary that does have a tragic past and does show how far she has had to go to fix the problems in her life. The main focus is on the convent which does keep us guessing to what the Mother Superior will do next because they want the babies and can’t risk damaging them, but do need to punish the women. We do get elements of the theme around the idea of cults which does play an important factor in just where the film ends up going. We also have women at different stages of pregnancy which shows us and Mary just what will happen to her if she stays.
Horror – The horror in the film follows the events in the convent, we get a mix of hauntings and torture, which are only making Mary look like she is losing her mind.
Settings – The film is set in the convent, we get to see how the locked doors keep people in and just how they are going to be forcing the woman to follow the rules.
Special Effects – The effects in this film are used to show the injuries which aren’t as graphic as they could have been, though they imply horrific injuries given.
Scene of the Movie – The baby is coming.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It could have gone a lot darker that is does go.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough horror that uses the themes of religious cults to make the horror seem more realistic and shocking.
Overall: Religious Cult 101