Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Apocalypse Tomorrow (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
We get thrown into the disasters pretty quickly, so quickly in fact that I really thought I'd missed something, you will be glad to know that it's isn't so complex that you can't pick it up, it's just ridiculous.
The main characters of Neil and Colin are introduced very quickly and we get a rather clumsy potted backstory before they get swept up into the action. Joel Gretsch is a face I know from various things but it's The 4400 that sticks out the most, his acting in this isn't much of a stretch beyond what he's had experience with and he probably has the best character next to Marty.
Apocalypse Tomorrow, or Zodiac: Signs Of The Apocalypse, ticks all the classic TV disaster movie points... animals fleeing from impending danger, terrible CGI, vehicles and people being able to outrun nature, terrible CGI, and a dubious love interest moment... credit where credit is due, they did catch me out with this one. What I was severely upset by though was the fact that we hear about devastation around the world and there were no crappy shots of world famous landmarks being destroyed, don't they know that's what we come to these films for?!
You may know that I hate bouncy camera work, I was pleasantly surprised when (excluding in-car scenes) the camera was solid and not frustrating, TV movies tend to be a little erratic on that point. Sadly they do randomly have one scene where it appears that the cameraman was wearing trampoline shoes while going through caffeine withdrawal, even more confusingly there was a scene where I could have forgiven it happening but they chose a very calm moment to have it and it did nothing but annoy.
The props that are introduced suddenly looked very familiar and if I didn't know any better I'd have said they were original concept pieces for Stargate that had been found in a shed somewhere. The physical pieces don't actually look too bad visually, but the CGI is a mix of passable, bad and terrible, at no time convincing. Bizarrely that gives it pretty good marks for this sort of film.
As with many films that want to be more action than story our characters all get to jump to conclusions and accurate deductions without any work being put in. Significantly in this one it means that right near the beginning we jump from one scene to another and skip what feels like two scenes in the middle. From a tense situation everything goes calm instantly and everything is back to normal. With some better scripting there are a lot of moments like this that could have been avoided.
I feel like my score could be misleading, was this film bad? Yes. But it's just ridiculous enough to be amusing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/apocalypse-tomorrow-movie-review.html
The main characters of Neil and Colin are introduced very quickly and we get a rather clumsy potted backstory before they get swept up into the action. Joel Gretsch is a face I know from various things but it's The 4400 that sticks out the most, his acting in this isn't much of a stretch beyond what he's had experience with and he probably has the best character next to Marty.
Apocalypse Tomorrow, or Zodiac: Signs Of The Apocalypse, ticks all the classic TV disaster movie points... animals fleeing from impending danger, terrible CGI, vehicles and people being able to outrun nature, terrible CGI, and a dubious love interest moment... credit where credit is due, they did catch me out with this one. What I was severely upset by though was the fact that we hear about devastation around the world and there were no crappy shots of world famous landmarks being destroyed, don't they know that's what we come to these films for?!
You may know that I hate bouncy camera work, I was pleasantly surprised when (excluding in-car scenes) the camera was solid and not frustrating, TV movies tend to be a little erratic on that point. Sadly they do randomly have one scene where it appears that the cameraman was wearing trampoline shoes while going through caffeine withdrawal, even more confusingly there was a scene where I could have forgiven it happening but they chose a very calm moment to have it and it did nothing but annoy.
The props that are introduced suddenly looked very familiar and if I didn't know any better I'd have said they were original concept pieces for Stargate that had been found in a shed somewhere. The physical pieces don't actually look too bad visually, but the CGI is a mix of passable, bad and terrible, at no time convincing. Bizarrely that gives it pretty good marks for this sort of film.
As with many films that want to be more action than story our characters all get to jump to conclusions and accurate deductions without any work being put in. Significantly in this one it means that right near the beginning we jump from one scene to another and skip what feels like two scenes in the middle. From a tense situation everything goes calm instantly and everything is back to normal. With some better scripting there are a lot of moments like this that could have been avoided.
I feel like my score could be misleading, was this film bad? Yes. But it's just ridiculous enough to be amusing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/apocalypse-tomorrow-movie-review.html
Foul Play on Words
Book
Between a kidnapping, a double booking, and a crew of hapless volunteers, Charlee is worried the...
Cartooner: The Fast & Furious Game of Drawing Comics
8.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Cartooner is a new experience in drawing games, a game that combines storytelling and drawing. It is...
Troy Aker (6 KP) rated Super 8 (2011) in Movies
Dec 13, 2017
Much fun from JJ Abrams
With Super 8, JJ Abrams did something I feel is rare in cinema. It was a monster movie in which you actually care about the people involved. Way too often in movies it becomes easy to cheer on the monster because the people involved just aren't likable, or that not enough time is spent on them to create a connection with the characters. A character driven monster-disaster movie is rare. This movie is the anti-Michael Bay movie. Which is part of the reason why I love it so much.
Another reason I enjoy it so much is because of the period of the film. It is a very believable 1979, and though the kids in the movie are a little bit older than me, I still felt a connection to them and what they did in their lives. I remember working on various projects with friends as kids, when we would do everything we could to make our silly and fun little projects seem more adult. There is a certain rush to compete, when hormones start kicking in, with older and more mature kids, but still wanting to hold on to the fun things that makes the group enjoyable. This was all conveyed very well during the movie, and it helps create a connection with the characters.
The movie brings to mine some absolutely wonderful movies about groups of friends that go through a life-changing journey together, like E.T., The Goonies, and Stand By Me.
This being said, I think that people that grew up in the late 70's and early to mid-80's will enjoy this movie for different reasons than somebody that grew up after that. There was a certain level of nostalgia that hooked me in this movie. Someone who can't necessarily relate to the characters that way can certainly relate to them as far as a group of friends having a shifting dynamic as the teen years come barreling down at you.
Then for the action fans, the movie has one of, if not the best, crash scene I have ever seen. The monster action through most of the movie is quick cuts, loud sounds and then you see the aftermath. As the movie progresses, you do start to see more and more of the monster, so be patient. It won't be hidden forever. Seeing a little town of 12,000 people turn into a war zone was crazy as the military gets progressively involved as well.
This movie was not perfect though. There were a couple jumps in logic I felt. The kind where you sit there and think, "No way that it would happen like that." And another where you wonder why certain things are happening and others there are not. Also, towards the end, there was a certain amount of sappiness. Maybe not uncalled for due to the extraordinary circumstances that this town was put through though. But all this is easy to move past because the movie it self is so enjoyable.
Another reason I enjoy it so much is because of the period of the film. It is a very believable 1979, and though the kids in the movie are a little bit older than me, I still felt a connection to them and what they did in their lives. I remember working on various projects with friends as kids, when we would do everything we could to make our silly and fun little projects seem more adult. There is a certain rush to compete, when hormones start kicking in, with older and more mature kids, but still wanting to hold on to the fun things that makes the group enjoyable. This was all conveyed very well during the movie, and it helps create a connection with the characters.
The movie brings to mine some absolutely wonderful movies about groups of friends that go through a life-changing journey together, like E.T., The Goonies, and Stand By Me.
This being said, I think that people that grew up in the late 70's and early to mid-80's will enjoy this movie for different reasons than somebody that grew up after that. There was a certain level of nostalgia that hooked me in this movie. Someone who can't necessarily relate to the characters that way can certainly relate to them as far as a group of friends having a shifting dynamic as the teen years come barreling down at you.
Then for the action fans, the movie has one of, if not the best, crash scene I have ever seen. The monster action through most of the movie is quick cuts, loud sounds and then you see the aftermath. As the movie progresses, you do start to see more and more of the monster, so be patient. It won't be hidden forever. Seeing a little town of 12,000 people turn into a war zone was crazy as the military gets progressively involved as well.
This movie was not perfect though. There were a couple jumps in logic I felt. The kind where you sit there and think, "No way that it would happen like that." And another where you wonder why certain things are happening and others there are not. Also, towards the end, there was a certain amount of sappiness. Maybe not uncalled for due to the extraordinary circumstances that this town was put through though. But all this is easy to move past because the movie it self is so enjoyable.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Star Light, Star Bright in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Review added: May 16, 2013
First off, things I liked about the book: (1) the title, it's a nice touch of whimsy, (2) the cover colors, and (3) the little shooting star above the chapter numbers (hey, it's cute!). I'm sorry to say that's about it.
This book was just a disaster; there was an excessive amount crammed into 360 pages, and all of it was predictable, over-the-top, and unbelievable. All the characters are supposed to be flawed but they were one-dimensional and boring. Lily and Peter were an exception; I think they had possibilities, most likely better suited to a completely different book. Brooke was an absolutely horrible character; she's boring, whiney, and did many things that I don't think her character would do (such as leave her horses without a by-your-leave), not to mention when her mother tells Brooke about her father and she's not affected by it in the least. What?! Then she spends the whole rest of the book a whole mess of a person who really needs to be sent to a psychiatric clinic, it's just too bad no one else sees this. Ugh, why would anyone like this person, let alone love her?
I don't think the author knew quite what to do with the book. First, the prologue, I'm sorry but it really didn't make sense to the rest of the book, not that the rest made much sense either. Secondly, the author was always changing direction; from the back of the book, I thought it was a love triangle, not exactly. Ms. Stone shifted to and from that but never really settled on a solution to have the triangle. Next, the conversations were a joke; everybody just opens up to a stranger and tells them a whole story? Every conversation was so melodramatic too.
Now for the relationships... No love triangle, that's why I read the book, I thought it sounded interesting. Rafe and Brooke: he's 26, she's 17 when they meet, they spend 9 days together...they're in love? Ha! Not to mention it's very creepy. I can pretend that Brooke is a mature 17 but I don't think a relationship for 9 days would reckon they love each other, they don't even know each other well. I'm sorry but 9 years in between, especially when the younger is 17 is huge; it's not like when someone is 30 and the other is 39, it's a big difference. I also find it hard to believe that 12 years later, everyone is the same and feels the same, no one has really changed. Then from here, the rest of the book is played out in a week, and the last bit totals a month. Way too much for the time period.
I know I had many, many more problems with this story but I think I'll stop here because I gave the main ones. If I continued on I might give spoilers and I don't want to do that in case someone actually wants to read this book. I don't know if this story was supposed to be like a fable, but if it was, it was a dismal failure.
First off, things I liked about the book: (1) the title, it's a nice touch of whimsy, (2) the cover colors, and (3) the little shooting star above the chapter numbers (hey, it's cute!). I'm sorry to say that's about it.
This book was just a disaster; there was an excessive amount crammed into 360 pages, and all of it was predictable, over-the-top, and unbelievable. All the characters are supposed to be flawed but they were one-dimensional and boring. Lily and Peter were an exception; I think they had possibilities, most likely better suited to a completely different book. Brooke was an absolutely horrible character; she's boring, whiney, and did many things that I don't think her character would do (such as leave her horses without a by-your-leave), not to mention when her mother tells Brooke about her father and she's not affected by it in the least. What?! Then she spends the whole rest of the book a whole mess of a person who really needs to be sent to a psychiatric clinic, it's just too bad no one else sees this. Ugh, why would anyone like this person, let alone love her?
I don't think the author knew quite what to do with the book. First, the prologue, I'm sorry but it really didn't make sense to the rest of the book, not that the rest made much sense either. Secondly, the author was always changing direction; from the back of the book, I thought it was a love triangle, not exactly. Ms. Stone shifted to and from that but never really settled on a solution to have the triangle. Next, the conversations were a joke; everybody just opens up to a stranger and tells them a whole story? Every conversation was so melodramatic too.
Now for the relationships... No love triangle, that's why I read the book, I thought it sounded interesting. Rafe and Brooke: he's 26, she's 17 when they meet, they spend 9 days together...they're in love? Ha! Not to mention it's very creepy. I can pretend that Brooke is a mature 17 but I don't think a relationship for 9 days would reckon they love each other, they don't even know each other well. I'm sorry but 9 years in between, especially when the younger is 17 is huge; it's not like when someone is 30 and the other is 39, it's a big difference. I also find it hard to believe that 12 years later, everyone is the same and feels the same, no one has really changed. Then from here, the rest of the book is played out in a week, and the last bit totals a month. Way too much for the time period.
I know I had many, many more problems with this story but I think I'll stop here because I gave the main ones. If I continued on I might give spoilers and I don't want to do that in case someone actually wants to read this book. I don't know if this story was supposed to be like a fable, but if it was, it was a dismal failure.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Mar 31, 2019
It's set to be a busy year for live action Disney remakes, with Aladdin and The Lion King already lined up for release this year. Kicking things off though, is this reimagining of the 1941 classic Dumbo, with Tim Burton directing.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Inside Out (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A delightful treat
If there’s one thing Pixar knows how to do, it’s create memorable films. Long after you’ve walked out the cinema, the likes of Wall.E and Finding Nemo stay with you.
2015 marks the first time the studio will release two films in the same year, with The Good Dinosaur coming to cinemas in December and the subject of this review, Inside Out, in this year’s busy summer season.
But has this increased workload for Pixar’s animators resulted in a poorer quality movie?
Inside Out follows the story of young Riley, an eleven-year-old girl coming to terms with growing up in a new home away from her friends and the neighbourhood she knows and loves.
Deep inside her head, however, we find a whole host of colourful characters controlling Riley’s emotions. Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust all play a part in keeping her level-headed. Unfortunately, after a near disaster it falls on upbeat Joy and ever-blue Sadness to bring Riley back to who she once was.
Inside Out continues Pixar’s trend of creating beautifully animated films that really strike a chord with audiences. The sheer amount of colour is absolutely breath-taking and children will find much to enjoy in both the central characters and the numerous environments inside Riley’s head, while adults will love the stunning recreation of San Francisco in all its bustling glory.
The cast, which includes voice work by Bill Hader (Monsters University), Kyle MacLachlan (Desperate Housewives) and Diane Lane (Man of Steel) all do sterling jobs in bringing their characters to life but it is in Phyllis Smith, who plays Sadness, that we find the best portrayal.
A relatively unknown actress with few film credits to her name, Smith is truly wonderful as the little blue lady who keeps a check on the more upsetting moments in Riley’s life.
Elsewhere, Pixar has once again created a story that really focuses on the themes of growth, family bonding and what it means to grow up in today’s society with numerous cultural references that children and adults alike will enjoy.
However, it’s important to note that Inside Out is one of the more emotional films Pixar has created. At numerous points throughout the movie there were a couple of children in the cinema wiping away the tears – though this shows how heavily invested in the characters they became.
Unfortunately, despite being 94 minutes in length, Inside Out does feel a little drawn out in places and lacks the deeper storytelling elements that has made some of the studios other films so charming. This isn’t to say it lacks charm, but it’s in slightly shorter supply here.
Overall, Pixar has added another cracking film to its ever-increasing roster. Whilst not hitting the heights of Wall.E or Toy Story, it makes for a memorable and sensible film for the whole family to enjoy.
It’s the perfect start to the summer holidays. Roll on The Good Dinosaur.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/26/a-delightful-treat-inside-out-review/
2015 marks the first time the studio will release two films in the same year, with The Good Dinosaur coming to cinemas in December and the subject of this review, Inside Out, in this year’s busy summer season.
But has this increased workload for Pixar’s animators resulted in a poorer quality movie?
Inside Out follows the story of young Riley, an eleven-year-old girl coming to terms with growing up in a new home away from her friends and the neighbourhood she knows and loves.
Deep inside her head, however, we find a whole host of colourful characters controlling Riley’s emotions. Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust all play a part in keeping her level-headed. Unfortunately, after a near disaster it falls on upbeat Joy and ever-blue Sadness to bring Riley back to who she once was.
Inside Out continues Pixar’s trend of creating beautifully animated films that really strike a chord with audiences. The sheer amount of colour is absolutely breath-taking and children will find much to enjoy in both the central characters and the numerous environments inside Riley’s head, while adults will love the stunning recreation of San Francisco in all its bustling glory.
The cast, which includes voice work by Bill Hader (Monsters University), Kyle MacLachlan (Desperate Housewives) and Diane Lane (Man of Steel) all do sterling jobs in bringing their characters to life but it is in Phyllis Smith, who plays Sadness, that we find the best portrayal.
A relatively unknown actress with few film credits to her name, Smith is truly wonderful as the little blue lady who keeps a check on the more upsetting moments in Riley’s life.
Elsewhere, Pixar has once again created a story that really focuses on the themes of growth, family bonding and what it means to grow up in today’s society with numerous cultural references that children and adults alike will enjoy.
However, it’s important to note that Inside Out is one of the more emotional films Pixar has created. At numerous points throughout the movie there were a couple of children in the cinema wiping away the tears – though this shows how heavily invested in the characters they became.
Unfortunately, despite being 94 minutes in length, Inside Out does feel a little drawn out in places and lacks the deeper storytelling elements that has made some of the studios other films so charming. This isn’t to say it lacks charm, but it’s in slightly shorter supply here.
Overall, Pixar has added another cracking film to its ever-increasing roster. Whilst not hitting the heights of Wall.E or Toy Story, it makes for a memorable and sensible film for the whole family to enjoy.
It’s the perfect start to the summer holidays. Roll on The Good Dinosaur.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/26/a-delightful-treat-inside-out-review/
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated The News: A User's Manual in Books
Aug 5, 2018
I believe this book has the wrong title. Let me explain.
Despite having the title “The News: A User’s Manual”, the book reads like a wish-list of how de Botton wants news journalists and media editors to present and publish the news. Furthermore, if it was intended to be read by the layperson, de Botton must have had the dual intention of increasing the lay reader’s vocabulary. Several of the words I looked up in my offline dictionary app weren’t to be found.
I liked how his views were presented though - this short book is split into 8 main topics: politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, consumption and a conclusion. Each topic is split into further sub-topics, and each of the points being made in these sub-topics is numbered and lasts about a page. This organization doesn’t disrupt the fluidity, however, and the way that points are made in such small sections provides the perfect opportunity to pause and reflect on each point made.
It presents the author’s views on what the news should ideally be and how it can enrich us. He made numerous valid points, but for the purposes of this review, I will concentrate on those I consider to be the most important. The book is written for a British audience, using several British news story excerpts to highlight de Botton’s points. His points are all well put and I didn’t really want to have to paraphrase them for this review for that very reason.
Firstly, the perception that political news is boring is not a minor issue. Often there is an important matter which fails to engage us, and we can react more strongly to matters which affect very few people.
Another valid point is how the process of the reader developing views on serious issues on which so little information is actually conveyed, makes us feel like we are being ruled by crooks and idiots who seem to be ignoring logical solutions. The news fails to explain why difficult decisions are so difficult.
On celebrity news, de Botton portrays hero worship as childish and demeaning, a sign that we find ourselves inadequate. He argues that celebrity news should be used as a self-improvement tool, focusing on what we can learn from the individual.
De Botton believes that the purpose of dramatic tragedies should be so we can compare ourselves to the villain, that the stories read like fables and imparted a moral statement. We are a hideously flawed species, he says, and the criminals need to be humanized if we are to learn anything from these kinds of stories.
And on that note, I shall say I have learned something from this book. The contrast de Botton demonstrates between how the news is portrayed and how it ought to be to best enrich us, will ensure I will take his comments into consideration when I read/watch the news or am deciding on my personalization of news received on news apps. The purpose of the editors may be to sell advertising space, but my intention in perceiving the news is to obtain a fair and accurate perspective of the world around me.
Despite having the title “The News: A User’s Manual”, the book reads like a wish-list of how de Botton wants news journalists and media editors to present and publish the news. Furthermore, if it was intended to be read by the layperson, de Botton must have had the dual intention of increasing the lay reader’s vocabulary. Several of the words I looked up in my offline dictionary app weren’t to be found.
I liked how his views were presented though - this short book is split into 8 main topics: politics, world news, economics, celebrity, disaster, consumption and a conclusion. Each topic is split into further sub-topics, and each of the points being made in these sub-topics is numbered and lasts about a page. This organization doesn’t disrupt the fluidity, however, and the way that points are made in such small sections provides the perfect opportunity to pause and reflect on each point made.
It presents the author’s views on what the news should ideally be and how it can enrich us. He made numerous valid points, but for the purposes of this review, I will concentrate on those I consider to be the most important. The book is written for a British audience, using several British news story excerpts to highlight de Botton’s points. His points are all well put and I didn’t really want to have to paraphrase them for this review for that very reason.
Firstly, the perception that political news is boring is not a minor issue. Often there is an important matter which fails to engage us, and we can react more strongly to matters which affect very few people.
Another valid point is how the process of the reader developing views on serious issues on which so little information is actually conveyed, makes us feel like we are being ruled by crooks and idiots who seem to be ignoring logical solutions. The news fails to explain why difficult decisions are so difficult.
On celebrity news, de Botton portrays hero worship as childish and demeaning, a sign that we find ourselves inadequate. He argues that celebrity news should be used as a self-improvement tool, focusing on what we can learn from the individual.
De Botton believes that the purpose of dramatic tragedies should be so we can compare ourselves to the villain, that the stories read like fables and imparted a moral statement. We are a hideously flawed species, he says, and the criminals need to be humanized if we are to learn anything from these kinds of stories.
And on that note, I shall say I have learned something from this book. The contrast de Botton demonstrates between how the news is portrayed and how it ought to be to best enrich us, will ensure I will take his comments into consideration when I read/watch the news or am deciding on my personalization of news received on news apps. The purpose of the editors may be to sell advertising space, but my intention in perceiving the news is to obtain a fair and accurate perspective of the world around me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Adapting a cultural film icon that is held sacred by a nation and legions of fans is a daunting task. Roland Emerich attempted to do so, and created a film widely panned that ended his run of blockbuster hits.
Gareth Edwards is the latest director bold enough to bring the legendary Godzilla to the screen and has done so with cutting edge visual effects and 3D.
When Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston), becomes unsettled about some unusual tremors around the Japanese nuclear plant he works at, little does he know that the pending accident and tragedy will have long-term consequences.
Flash forward 15 years and his son Ford (Aaron Taylor Johnson), is an ordinance disposal expert in the military who is returning to his San Francisco home after a deployment to see his wife and young son.
No sooner does Ford get home than he is summed to Japan to retrieve his father who has been arrested for venturing into a restricted area located by his former residence and place of work.
Joe is convinced that a massive cover up is place behind the disaster that left him a widow and turned his life upside down.
When the mysterious tremors return, Joe is vindicated and learns that a massive threat is responsible for what has previously transpired, but this is nothing compared to the damage that is unleashed when the creature escapes.
In a race against time, Ford, the Navy, and a team of scientists attempt to prevent massive destruction and loss of life from an enemy they are not prepared for and do not understand.
While the film does have some great visuals, it unfolds in a very plodding manner and the action sequences are few and far between until the end and even that is for the most part anti-climatic.
The dialogue in the film is filled with groans and unintentionally laughable moments that really make it difficult for the characters to really connect with one another and the audience and as such it is very hard to really care what happens to them.
Another big surprise was how little screen time the title characters actually appears in the film. I spent much of the film wondering how such a larger than life character could be reduced to a supporting part in a film that bears his name.
It has been reported that Japanese audiences have not been thrilled with the new film stating that the creature looked “fat “and “slow”. I would not go that far as from a visually standpoint, the film obtained nothing but high marks from me.
However, I had to ask if we really needed to have this film made. We have had so many giant creature movies in recent years including “King Kong”, “Colverfield”, and “Pacific Rim”; one has to wonder what new material there is to show an audience.
While it is not as bad as I expected, it is pretty much a guilty pleasure that you can enjoy in parts and then quickly forget as this film is not likely to enhance the legendary status of Godzilla.
http://sknr.net/2014/05/14/godzilla/
Gareth Edwards is the latest director bold enough to bring the legendary Godzilla to the screen and has done so with cutting edge visual effects and 3D.
When Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston), becomes unsettled about some unusual tremors around the Japanese nuclear plant he works at, little does he know that the pending accident and tragedy will have long-term consequences.
Flash forward 15 years and his son Ford (Aaron Taylor Johnson), is an ordinance disposal expert in the military who is returning to his San Francisco home after a deployment to see his wife and young son.
No sooner does Ford get home than he is summed to Japan to retrieve his father who has been arrested for venturing into a restricted area located by his former residence and place of work.
Joe is convinced that a massive cover up is place behind the disaster that left him a widow and turned his life upside down.
When the mysterious tremors return, Joe is vindicated and learns that a massive threat is responsible for what has previously transpired, but this is nothing compared to the damage that is unleashed when the creature escapes.
In a race against time, Ford, the Navy, and a team of scientists attempt to prevent massive destruction and loss of life from an enemy they are not prepared for and do not understand.
While the film does have some great visuals, it unfolds in a very plodding manner and the action sequences are few and far between until the end and even that is for the most part anti-climatic.
The dialogue in the film is filled with groans and unintentionally laughable moments that really make it difficult for the characters to really connect with one another and the audience and as such it is very hard to really care what happens to them.
Another big surprise was how little screen time the title characters actually appears in the film. I spent much of the film wondering how such a larger than life character could be reduced to a supporting part in a film that bears his name.
It has been reported that Japanese audiences have not been thrilled with the new film stating that the creature looked “fat “and “slow”. I would not go that far as from a visually standpoint, the film obtained nothing but high marks from me.
However, I had to ask if we really needed to have this film made. We have had so many giant creature movies in recent years including “King Kong”, “Colverfield”, and “Pacific Rim”; one has to wonder what new material there is to show an audience.
While it is not as bad as I expected, it is pretty much a guilty pleasure that you can enjoy in parts and then quickly forget as this film is not likely to enhance the legendary status of Godzilla.
http://sknr.net/2014/05/14/godzilla/
Lee (2222 KP) rated Spies in Disguise (2019) in Movies
Jan 1, 2020
I’m not exactly complaining, but Tom Holland does seem to literally be in everything right now. As I sat ready to watch Spies in Disguise, which features the voice of Tom Holland, there was a trailer for upcoming Pixar movie Onward, featuring the voice of Tom Holland. Then a trailer for Dolittle, starring Robert Downey Jr and featuring the voice of Tom Holland as loyal dog Jip. On top of starring in 2019s highest grossing movie, as everyone’s favourite neighbourhood webslinger, he’s certainly having quite the year right now. And well deserved it is too.
But before we get to his voicing of Walter in Spies in Disguise, we meet much younger Walter, 14 years earlier, building gadgets and being branded a weirdo at school. His police officer mum comforts Walter, telling him that weird is good and the world needs weirdos. And that one day, the invention he’s just tested on his unsuspecting mum - a grenade which explodes into glitter and projects cute kittens - might just come in handy...
Will Smith on the other hand, hasn’t had quite as great a year as Tom Holland. Ridiculed for his blue genie in the run up to the release of Aladdin, he actually wasn’t too bad when the movie came out. But then came the disaster that was Gemini Man. Hopefully though, the upcoming sequel ‘Bad Boys for Life’ will be a return to form for Smith, but for now, starring as the voice of Lance Sterling, the worlds greatest spy, has certainly landed him a winner. A suave, charming, one man operation, we’re shown just how cool and impressive Sterling is as he single-handedly and effortlessly takes out dozens of bad guys using combat skills and a variety of spy gadgets. But Lance is suddenly caught off guard when, instead of releasing a more traditional explosive to take out some goons, he releases a glitter-kitty explosion.
Returning to headquarters a hero, we discover that Walter is now working in the gadgets department, where new tricks and toys for spies are designed and tested. Lance is not impressed with Walter messing up his operation and the pair don’t exactly hit it off on the right foot. But when Lance is wrongly accused of committing a crime, he must go on the run and reluctantly team up with Walter to get the bad guy and clear his name. And how is he going to do that without being seen and caught? Well, just so happens that Walter has invented a way of turning humans into pigeons!
There’s nothing particularly new about the main plot of Spies in Disguise, aside from the pigeon aspect of it all of course. But it’s the fast paced action and humour that really sets this apart from the crowd and quite often reminded me of The Incredibles - great characters and great ideas all mixed together with some impressive visuals and slick action. Both Tom Holland and Will Smith are perfect in their roles and, aside from a bit of a mid-movie dip, Spies in Disguise actually proved to be hugely entertaining.
But before we get to his voicing of Walter in Spies in Disguise, we meet much younger Walter, 14 years earlier, building gadgets and being branded a weirdo at school. His police officer mum comforts Walter, telling him that weird is good and the world needs weirdos. And that one day, the invention he’s just tested on his unsuspecting mum - a grenade which explodes into glitter and projects cute kittens - might just come in handy...
Will Smith on the other hand, hasn’t had quite as great a year as Tom Holland. Ridiculed for his blue genie in the run up to the release of Aladdin, he actually wasn’t too bad when the movie came out. But then came the disaster that was Gemini Man. Hopefully though, the upcoming sequel ‘Bad Boys for Life’ will be a return to form for Smith, but for now, starring as the voice of Lance Sterling, the worlds greatest spy, has certainly landed him a winner. A suave, charming, one man operation, we’re shown just how cool and impressive Sterling is as he single-handedly and effortlessly takes out dozens of bad guys using combat skills and a variety of spy gadgets. But Lance is suddenly caught off guard when, instead of releasing a more traditional explosive to take out some goons, he releases a glitter-kitty explosion.
Returning to headquarters a hero, we discover that Walter is now working in the gadgets department, where new tricks and toys for spies are designed and tested. Lance is not impressed with Walter messing up his operation and the pair don’t exactly hit it off on the right foot. But when Lance is wrongly accused of committing a crime, he must go on the run and reluctantly team up with Walter to get the bad guy and clear his name. And how is he going to do that without being seen and caught? Well, just so happens that Walter has invented a way of turning humans into pigeons!
There’s nothing particularly new about the main plot of Spies in Disguise, aside from the pigeon aspect of it all of course. But it’s the fast paced action and humour that really sets this apart from the crowd and quite often reminded me of The Incredibles - great characters and great ideas all mixed together with some impressive visuals and slick action. Both Tom Holland and Will Smith are perfect in their roles and, aside from a bit of a mid-movie dip, Spies in Disguise actually proved to be hugely entertaining.