Search
Search results
Flood Risk: The Holistic Perspective
Zoran Vojinovic and Jingmin Huang
Book
According to the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT), over the last seventy years, floods have...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Return to form
Based, believe it or not, loosely, on the Tim Powers novel, On Stranger Tides, Pirates 4 seemed about as appealing as hole in the head after the diabolical sequels to the excellent first outing. Then it was to be in 3D, scrap several key characters and shed the direction of Gore Verbinski, in favour of Chicago's, Rob Marshall. A recipe for disaster? It seemed that way.
Though saying that, Gore had certainly sealed his fate with me, turning what was a well conceived, action adventure romp with some very memorable characters into an unnecessary epic saga which seriously missed the point and derailed itself. One dubious decision taken in the production of Dead Man's Chest, was to keep Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly's characters, let alone giving them so much prominence.
Knightly was fine, for the first film,. in fact, she was spot on, but she couldn't carry the role any further and began to look ridiculous as the series progressed. This should have been the adventures of Jack Sparrow, so excellently portrayed by Johnny Depp, and Geoffrey Rush's, Barbossa was the perfect pirate. So I was more than pleased to see the continuing adventures of these two characters, with Depp, returning to form after I felt that he had lost it in the sequels.
Penélope Cruz was another pleasant surprise, as never being a fan of her's, I was dubious but this was casting done properly. She was more than convincing as a pirate and put Knightly's efforts to shame. But what of Ian McShane's Blackbeard? Well, another great showing from him, but the inexplicable magic displayed as he waves in his 3D sword around and points it at the camera to remind us that 3D is here, not so much.
But the 3D was pretty naff. You could watch most of the film without the glasses, with the effect being limited to several sequences. It looked good, it was inoffensive and unobtrusive but what was the point again? I don't think that this film will do 3D any real harm but that's because nobody really noticed it in the first place.
The sense of adventure from the The Curse Of The Black Pearl was evident here and long over due. I find it puzzling as to why so many reviews have been so harsh, branding it boring, overly complicated and not pulled together properly, but I would disagree. Granted, it is a bit scrappy, it's not going to be used as case study in tight scripting, or deep character development and it is somewhat derivative, but it was fun, flashy and flamboyant.
Isn't this what these films are all about? Depp created a classic character with Sparrow back in 2003, and tough I felt that he was a one trick pony, Sparrow that is, not Depp, this was a partial return to form, under new direction from Marshall. But I am left feeling that no matter how much I enjoyed this for what it was, the first Pirates Of The Caribbean was a film which successfully transferred a theme park ride into a career defining blockbuster, but I feel that it should have remained one film, a single triumph and not a franchise that has been saved in my eyes, by the fourth installment.
Though saying that, Gore had certainly sealed his fate with me, turning what was a well conceived, action adventure romp with some very memorable characters into an unnecessary epic saga which seriously missed the point and derailed itself. One dubious decision taken in the production of Dead Man's Chest, was to keep Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly's characters, let alone giving them so much prominence.
Knightly was fine, for the first film,. in fact, she was spot on, but she couldn't carry the role any further and began to look ridiculous as the series progressed. This should have been the adventures of Jack Sparrow, so excellently portrayed by Johnny Depp, and Geoffrey Rush's, Barbossa was the perfect pirate. So I was more than pleased to see the continuing adventures of these two characters, with Depp, returning to form after I felt that he had lost it in the sequels.
Penélope Cruz was another pleasant surprise, as never being a fan of her's, I was dubious but this was casting done properly. She was more than convincing as a pirate and put Knightly's efforts to shame. But what of Ian McShane's Blackbeard? Well, another great showing from him, but the inexplicable magic displayed as he waves in his 3D sword around and points it at the camera to remind us that 3D is here, not so much.
But the 3D was pretty naff. You could watch most of the film without the glasses, with the effect being limited to several sequences. It looked good, it was inoffensive and unobtrusive but what was the point again? I don't think that this film will do 3D any real harm but that's because nobody really noticed it in the first place.
The sense of adventure from the The Curse Of The Black Pearl was evident here and long over due. I find it puzzling as to why so many reviews have been so harsh, branding it boring, overly complicated and not pulled together properly, but I would disagree. Granted, it is a bit scrappy, it's not going to be used as case study in tight scripting, or deep character development and it is somewhat derivative, but it was fun, flashy and flamboyant.
Isn't this what these films are all about? Depp created a classic character with Sparrow back in 2003, and tough I felt that he was a one trick pony, Sparrow that is, not Depp, this was a partial return to form, under new direction from Marshall. But I am left feeling that no matter how much I enjoyed this for what it was, the first Pirates Of The Caribbean was a film which successfully transferred a theme park ride into a career defining blockbuster, but I feel that it should have remained one film, a single triumph and not a franchise that has been saved in my eyes, by the fourth installment.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Spy (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Comedic Gold
From the brilliant Paul Feig, director of the ridiculously funny Bridesmaids and Sandra Bullock’s laugh-a-minute The Heat comes the latest in the secret agent comedy film, Spy. But does this film, fronted by the ever-popular Melissa McCarthy have what it takes to play with the big boys in the genre?
Spy follows the story of McCarthy’s Susan Cooper, a lonely CIA analyst suddenly thrust into the limelight as a secret agent tasked with tracking the whereabouts of a nuclear weapon after the rest of the agency’s operatives have their identities compromised.
After the success of Matthew Vaughn’s Kingsman: The Secret Service, released earlier this year, expectations of another spy comedy hit for 2015 were low to say the least, especially after the critical disaster that was Reese Witherspoon’s cop comedy Hot Pursuit.
However, Feig once again strikes gold with an exciting story, an all-star cast and some breath-taking scenery and action pieces. There’s no wonder he’s been tasked with directing the Ghostbusters reboot.
Jason Statham, Rose Byrne, Miranda Hart and Jude Law take their places in a film that not only has you on the edge of your seat more times than the majority of full-blown action movies, but also will have you laughing your head off.
The gags are relentless and on the whole, very funny with McCarthy continuing to be a dynamic presence like she has shown throughout the majority of her previous work. However, the surprising stand-out is Jason Statham as super spy Rick Ford.
We’ve all seen Statham play the tough action guy and his role in Spy is certainly no different. The difference comes with his ridiculously dry sense of humour – he is genuinely funny with his serious delivery and provides the film with its best moments.
Jude Law’s charismatic agent Fine, oblivious to McCarthy’s affections for him fails to make as much of an impact as Statham’s truly brilliant characterisation.
The film’s biggest weakness is in Miranda Hart however, who channels the same character that anyone familiar with her BBC One show will know all too well. Yes, she’s funny, but only because the script allows her to be – almost masking her well-worn persona somewhat.
Elsewhere, the locations are beautiful. From Paris to Budapest, Spy takes you on a tour of Europe and is unashamed of showing these tourist hot-spots in all their glory. Feig juxtaposes sweeping shots of Paris with intimate scenes in Budapest and the film’s occasional tonal shift also utilises this filming tactic well.
Moreover, the numerous action sequences are excellently choreographed. Feig has a real love for the spy genre and it shows. From the super slow-mo used so the audience knows what is going on, to the Shirley Bassey like theme song, nowhere is untouched in creating a viable spy movie, albeit a funny one.
Overall, so far, every film Paul Feig has touched has turned to gold. The Heat wasn’t as impressive as Bridesmaids but that is simply because of how fantastic the latter is. However, with Spy there is no denying that he is back on solid ground.
Melissa McCarthy is the perfect comedy actress to front a film like this and Jason Statham’s surprising comedic turn is absolutely marvellous. Despite a less than stellar performance from Miranda Hart, Spy is fun from beginning to end with numerous twists and turns along the way.
Settle down for the ride with some popcorn and you’ll have a fantastic time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/07/comedic-gold-spy-review/
Spy follows the story of McCarthy’s Susan Cooper, a lonely CIA analyst suddenly thrust into the limelight as a secret agent tasked with tracking the whereabouts of a nuclear weapon after the rest of the agency’s operatives have their identities compromised.
After the success of Matthew Vaughn’s Kingsman: The Secret Service, released earlier this year, expectations of another spy comedy hit for 2015 were low to say the least, especially after the critical disaster that was Reese Witherspoon’s cop comedy Hot Pursuit.
However, Feig once again strikes gold with an exciting story, an all-star cast and some breath-taking scenery and action pieces. There’s no wonder he’s been tasked with directing the Ghostbusters reboot.
Jason Statham, Rose Byrne, Miranda Hart and Jude Law take their places in a film that not only has you on the edge of your seat more times than the majority of full-blown action movies, but also will have you laughing your head off.
The gags are relentless and on the whole, very funny with McCarthy continuing to be a dynamic presence like she has shown throughout the majority of her previous work. However, the surprising stand-out is Jason Statham as super spy Rick Ford.
We’ve all seen Statham play the tough action guy and his role in Spy is certainly no different. The difference comes with his ridiculously dry sense of humour – he is genuinely funny with his serious delivery and provides the film with its best moments.
Jude Law’s charismatic agent Fine, oblivious to McCarthy’s affections for him fails to make as much of an impact as Statham’s truly brilliant characterisation.
The film’s biggest weakness is in Miranda Hart however, who channels the same character that anyone familiar with her BBC One show will know all too well. Yes, she’s funny, but only because the script allows her to be – almost masking her well-worn persona somewhat.
Elsewhere, the locations are beautiful. From Paris to Budapest, Spy takes you on a tour of Europe and is unashamed of showing these tourist hot-spots in all their glory. Feig juxtaposes sweeping shots of Paris with intimate scenes in Budapest and the film’s occasional tonal shift also utilises this filming tactic well.
Moreover, the numerous action sequences are excellently choreographed. Feig has a real love for the spy genre and it shows. From the super slow-mo used so the audience knows what is going on, to the Shirley Bassey like theme song, nowhere is untouched in creating a viable spy movie, albeit a funny one.
Overall, so far, every film Paul Feig has touched has turned to gold. The Heat wasn’t as impressive as Bridesmaids but that is simply because of how fantastic the latter is. However, with Spy there is no denying that he is back on solid ground.
Melissa McCarthy is the perfect comedy actress to front a film like this and Jason Statham’s surprising comedic turn is absolutely marvellous. Despite a less than stellar performance from Miranda Hart, Spy is fun from beginning to end with numerous twists and turns along the way.
Settle down for the ride with some popcorn and you’ll have a fantastic time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/07/comedic-gold-spy-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Turning the beloved Ghost in the Shell manga franchise into a Hollywood film that’ll please picky Western audiences was always going to be a tough job for director Rupert Sanders (Snow White & the Huntsman).
Casting the central lead, The Major, proved even more difficult. When Scarlett Johansson’s name was attached to play the role, Hollywood was once again accused of white-washing, a tag lobbied at Gods of Egypt last year. The finished product is now in cinemas around the globe, but is it the disaster many predicted?
In the near future, Major (Scarlett Johansson) is the first of her kind: a human who has been cyber-enhanced to create a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world’s most dangerous criminals. When terrorism reaches a new level that includes the ability to hack into people’s minds and control them, Major is uniquely qualified to stop it. As she prepares to face a new enemy, Major finds truths about her past that changes her view on the world forever.
The greatest accolade that can be given to Ghost in the Shell is that its pre-release detractors haven’t stopped people from going to see it. The cinema was busy on its opening night, with many itching to see how such a universally loved manga could be fine-tuned for a Western palate.
Visually; the film is absolutely stunning and is best viewed on the biggest screen possible. Each frame is dripping with detail and the naturally heavy use of CGI doesn’t detract from creating a vibrant metropolis that feels every bit alive.
The story is simple to follow and easy to enjoy. It’s exciting, emotional and boosted by a fine, if slightly uninspiring performance from Johansson. The rest of the cast can also be described as fine, with only Juliette Binoche’s mother-like Dr. Ouélet creating any sort of lasting impact.
And this is Ghost in the Shell’s fundamental weakness. Outside of Binoche, the rest of the cast are largely forgettable and that’s a real shame considering the characters in its excellent source material were, for want of a better word, magical. Even the villain is devoid any sort of tyranny.
Thankfully though, the impressive set design and well-choreographed action sequences mask the disappointing array of characters well and steamroll this thrilling adventure to a very satisfying conclusion. It’s also accompanied by a gorgeous soundtrack by Clint Mansell and Lorne Balfe that compliments the futuristic nature of the film beautifully.
Sitting in the theatre, it felt at times like I was watching an updated version of Total Recall, and that’s no bad thing. Comparing it to a cult classic is probably what director Rupert Sanders was trying to achieve and despite its poor characters, Ghost in the Shell has every opportunity to succeed as a film we look back on in 30 years and think “hey, that’s actually pretty good”.
Overall, Ghost in the Shell is one hell of a good-looking film. Couple this with impressive special effects and a rollercoaster ride of a story and you have a big screen experience that’s great for 106 minutes, but probably won’t have any lasting impact once the end credits roll.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/31/not-without-its-faults-ghost-in-the-shell-review/
Casting the central lead, The Major, proved even more difficult. When Scarlett Johansson’s name was attached to play the role, Hollywood was once again accused of white-washing, a tag lobbied at Gods of Egypt last year. The finished product is now in cinemas around the globe, but is it the disaster many predicted?
In the near future, Major (Scarlett Johansson) is the first of her kind: a human who has been cyber-enhanced to create a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world’s most dangerous criminals. When terrorism reaches a new level that includes the ability to hack into people’s minds and control them, Major is uniquely qualified to stop it. As she prepares to face a new enemy, Major finds truths about her past that changes her view on the world forever.
The greatest accolade that can be given to Ghost in the Shell is that its pre-release detractors haven’t stopped people from going to see it. The cinema was busy on its opening night, with many itching to see how such a universally loved manga could be fine-tuned for a Western palate.
Visually; the film is absolutely stunning and is best viewed on the biggest screen possible. Each frame is dripping with detail and the naturally heavy use of CGI doesn’t detract from creating a vibrant metropolis that feels every bit alive.
The story is simple to follow and easy to enjoy. It’s exciting, emotional and boosted by a fine, if slightly uninspiring performance from Johansson. The rest of the cast can also be described as fine, with only Juliette Binoche’s mother-like Dr. Ouélet creating any sort of lasting impact.
And this is Ghost in the Shell’s fundamental weakness. Outside of Binoche, the rest of the cast are largely forgettable and that’s a real shame considering the characters in its excellent source material were, for want of a better word, magical. Even the villain is devoid any sort of tyranny.
Thankfully though, the impressive set design and well-choreographed action sequences mask the disappointing array of characters well and steamroll this thrilling adventure to a very satisfying conclusion. It’s also accompanied by a gorgeous soundtrack by Clint Mansell and Lorne Balfe that compliments the futuristic nature of the film beautifully.
Sitting in the theatre, it felt at times like I was watching an updated version of Total Recall, and that’s no bad thing. Comparing it to a cult classic is probably what director Rupert Sanders was trying to achieve and despite its poor characters, Ghost in the Shell has every opportunity to succeed as a film we look back on in 30 years and think “hey, that’s actually pretty good”.
Overall, Ghost in the Shell is one hell of a good-looking film. Couple this with impressive special effects and a rollercoaster ride of a story and you have a big screen experience that’s great for 106 minutes, but probably won’t have any lasting impact once the end credits roll.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/31/not-without-its-faults-ghost-in-the-shell-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Run All Night (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Neeson at his gritty best
It’s fair to say Liam Neeson has picked some decidedly dodgy acting jobs since his rise to become an A-list Hollywood action hero. From a disappointing turn in the most recent A Team movie to the laughably bad Taken 3, he seems to have been turned from fan favourite to the butt of so many jokes.
After January’s poorly received Taken 3, Neeson returns to give the genre another go in Run All Night, but does Jaume Collet-Serra’s intriguing direction return him to the top of the food chain?
Run All Night follows the story of Neeson’s Jimmy Conlon as he does his best to keep his son Michael, played by Joel Kinnaman, away from the deadly clutches of Sean Maguire, a brutal underworld gangster portrayed by Ed Harris, after the murder of Sean’s son Danny over the course of 16 hours.
What ensues is a formulaic action thriller featuring by-the-numbers set pieces that are interspersed with some inspiring cinematography and all the actors at the top of their game.
Neeson’s Jimmy is an alcoholic former hit man, previously employed by Maguire, who has decided to move away from his shady past and become a more rounded individual. His interactions with Ed Harris’ brilliant Sean are excellent and the pair have genuine chemistry – it’s just a shame that their backstory isn’t built on a little more.
As the audience follows Jimmy and Michael evading the police, mobsters and professional hired killers, the film traces their backstory, almost using the action-packed set pieces as checkpoints for a bit more history and from a genre that rarely utilises character development, this is a welcome addition.
The cinematography is truly stunning. The sweeping shots of New York City are inspired and the use of tracking and aerial panning instead of simply fading between scenes stylises the film like no other action movie from the last few years.
There is an air of The Taking of Pelham 123 in Serra’s direction, and of course the similarities to Neeson’s Taken and Serra’s very own Non-Stop that also starred the Irish actor are obvious.
Unfortunately, all these comparisons mean that Run All Night isn’t particularly original in premise despite its unique direction. We’ve seen it all before, we saw Neeson running about and shooting bad guys in Taken, Taken 2 and Taken 3. We saw him try to get the bottom of a serious problem in Non-Stop and we saw him take on the role of a troubled alcoholic in The Grey.
Yes, after Taken 3, Run All Night showcases Neeson at his gritty best, but it’s in Ed Harris that we find the most intriguing
character and he puts everything into Sean Maguire – despite his more than familiar name.
Thankfully, Serra and the production crew steered away from creating a film that would please the masses and opted for an often brutal, yet strangely warming action thriller – along the way avoiding the pitfalls of some of Neeson’s previous efforts.
Overall, Run All Night isn’t the disaster it could have been and shows what everyone’s favourite Irish actor is capable of when given the right material to work with. Ed Harris is also on point and Jaume Collet-Serra’s direction goes above and beyond what the genre asks for.
Only an underwhelming final act and a highly unoriginal story stop it from becoming the film it so deeply wanted to be.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/15/neeson-at-his-gritty-best-run-all-night-review/
After January’s poorly received Taken 3, Neeson returns to give the genre another go in Run All Night, but does Jaume Collet-Serra’s intriguing direction return him to the top of the food chain?
Run All Night follows the story of Neeson’s Jimmy Conlon as he does his best to keep his son Michael, played by Joel Kinnaman, away from the deadly clutches of Sean Maguire, a brutal underworld gangster portrayed by Ed Harris, after the murder of Sean’s son Danny over the course of 16 hours.
What ensues is a formulaic action thriller featuring by-the-numbers set pieces that are interspersed with some inspiring cinematography and all the actors at the top of their game.
Neeson’s Jimmy is an alcoholic former hit man, previously employed by Maguire, who has decided to move away from his shady past and become a more rounded individual. His interactions with Ed Harris’ brilliant Sean are excellent and the pair have genuine chemistry – it’s just a shame that their backstory isn’t built on a little more.
As the audience follows Jimmy and Michael evading the police, mobsters and professional hired killers, the film traces their backstory, almost using the action-packed set pieces as checkpoints for a bit more history and from a genre that rarely utilises character development, this is a welcome addition.
The cinematography is truly stunning. The sweeping shots of New York City are inspired and the use of tracking and aerial panning instead of simply fading between scenes stylises the film like no other action movie from the last few years.
There is an air of The Taking of Pelham 123 in Serra’s direction, and of course the similarities to Neeson’s Taken and Serra’s very own Non-Stop that also starred the Irish actor are obvious.
Unfortunately, all these comparisons mean that Run All Night isn’t particularly original in premise despite its unique direction. We’ve seen it all before, we saw Neeson running about and shooting bad guys in Taken, Taken 2 and Taken 3. We saw him try to get the bottom of a serious problem in Non-Stop and we saw him take on the role of a troubled alcoholic in The Grey.
Yes, after Taken 3, Run All Night showcases Neeson at his gritty best, but it’s in Ed Harris that we find the most intriguing
character and he puts everything into Sean Maguire – despite his more than familiar name.
Thankfully, Serra and the production crew steered away from creating a film that would please the masses and opted for an often brutal, yet strangely warming action thriller – along the way avoiding the pitfalls of some of Neeson’s previous efforts.
Overall, Run All Night isn’t the disaster it could have been and shows what everyone’s favourite Irish actor is capable of when given the right material to work with. Ed Harris is also on point and Jaume Collet-Serra’s direction goes above and beyond what the genre asks for.
Only an underwhelming final act and a highly unoriginal story stop it from becoming the film it so deeply wanted to be.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/15/neeson-at-his-gritty-best-run-all-night-review/
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?
Hazel (1853 KP) rated H2O (The Rain, #1) in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>Thank you to NetGalley and Pan Macmillan for providing a proof copy to read and review.</i>
The world has already had to deal with worldwide pandemics spread by animals and birds such as swine flu and bird flu. What if there was a fatal disease in the rain? How would humanity cope? This is what Virginia Bergin explores in her debut novel aptly titled <i>The Rain</i>. If anyone were to come into contact with the rain, even a single drop, or contaminated water they would have an immediate reaction and be dead in less than three hours. Fifteen-year-old Ruby Morris, who has so far managed to survive this disaster, narrates the story starting from the first day that the disease arrived in Britain.
Ruby describes the losses of her friends and immediate family, the surprising improvement with her relationship with her stepfather Simon. She explains at length the things she had to face in order to survive, firstly with Simon and then with a particularly nerdy boy from school.
Despite hints from the title (and the blurb, of course) it is a long time before Ruby reveals what has actually happened. She talks to the reader as if they are experiencing the same thing and therefore know what she is referring to. Whilst this was probably an attempt to create suspense and to encourage the reader to keep reading it was slightly galling. What was really wanted was for Ruby to get to the point so that she and her audience would be on the same wavelength.
Whilst some readers may be able to relate to the main character: a teenage girl who loves to spend time with her friends and going to parties but has strict parents (and/or step-parents) who never let her do any of those things, which means she cannot easily have the thing she most desires – a boyfriend; she is actually a rather annoying, snobbish brat. She’s the kind of person that could be described as a “clueless bully”, a selfish girl who mostly, if not only, cares about appearances. Even in the face of the potential end of the world, or at least mankind, she is constantly worrying about the way she looks and what she wears, and is thrilled that she can break into expensive shops and take whatever make-up or clothing she wishes. There was probably a point in this character flaw – the exploration of how not only a young person copes on there own in dire situations, but someone of this particular mindset – however it was exasperating to read. She did change a little over the course of the story but not enough for her to become a likable character.
<i>The Rain</i> is more appropriate for young adult readers due to the nature of the main character, however it does deal with rather disturbing themes such as death and violence. Having said that there is nothing to stop older readers from enjoying the novel. It is an interesting concept, which, although highly unlikely to occur, will make people question how they would behave in the given situation. Would they be one of the first to die, or would they be in supermarkets fighting for the quickly disappearing food and drink? It is a thought-provoking idea!
The world has already had to deal with worldwide pandemics spread by animals and birds such as swine flu and bird flu. What if there was a fatal disease in the rain? How would humanity cope? This is what Virginia Bergin explores in her debut novel aptly titled <i>The Rain</i>. If anyone were to come into contact with the rain, even a single drop, or contaminated water they would have an immediate reaction and be dead in less than three hours. Fifteen-year-old Ruby Morris, who has so far managed to survive this disaster, narrates the story starting from the first day that the disease arrived in Britain.
Ruby describes the losses of her friends and immediate family, the surprising improvement with her relationship with her stepfather Simon. She explains at length the things she had to face in order to survive, firstly with Simon and then with a particularly nerdy boy from school.
Despite hints from the title (and the blurb, of course) it is a long time before Ruby reveals what has actually happened. She talks to the reader as if they are experiencing the same thing and therefore know what she is referring to. Whilst this was probably an attempt to create suspense and to encourage the reader to keep reading it was slightly galling. What was really wanted was for Ruby to get to the point so that she and her audience would be on the same wavelength.
Whilst some readers may be able to relate to the main character: a teenage girl who loves to spend time with her friends and going to parties but has strict parents (and/or step-parents) who never let her do any of those things, which means she cannot easily have the thing she most desires – a boyfriend; she is actually a rather annoying, snobbish brat. She’s the kind of person that could be described as a “clueless bully”, a selfish girl who mostly, if not only, cares about appearances. Even in the face of the potential end of the world, or at least mankind, she is constantly worrying about the way she looks and what she wears, and is thrilled that she can break into expensive shops and take whatever make-up or clothing she wishes. There was probably a point in this character flaw – the exploration of how not only a young person copes on there own in dire situations, but someone of this particular mindset – however it was exasperating to read. She did change a little over the course of the story but not enough for her to become a likable character.
<i>The Rain</i> is more appropriate for young adult readers due to the nature of the main character, however it does deal with rather disturbing themes such as death and violence. Having said that there is nothing to stop older readers from enjoying the novel. It is an interesting concept, which, although highly unlikely to occur, will make people question how they would behave in the given situation. Would they be one of the first to die, or would they be in supermarkets fighting for the quickly disappearing food and drink? It is a thought-provoking idea!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Everest (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Ever since Sir Edmund Hillary reached the peak of Mount Everest in 1953, the mountain has been the Holy Grail for climbers of all experience levels despite the fact that the mountain has claimed more than a few victims over the years from those who have attempted to reach the summit which is also known as “The Killing Zone”.
In the new film “Everest”, audiences get an up close look at the beauty and danger of the mountain as told by real men and women who risked it all for a shot at greatness.
Based on the books Into Thin Air and The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest by two of the survivors, the film looks at an expedition in 1996 that until recently was the most tragic climb on the mountain and caused real concern about the commercialization of the mountain.
Jason Clarke stars as Rob Hall, an experienced guide and climber who has operated a very successful company which charges $65,000 a head for the chance at greatness.
As the film opens, Rob is leaving his pregnant wife behind in New Zealand to lead a group up the mountain. The weather looks good during the brief window where they have a chance to climb to the top, and despite a record number of groups waiting to climb, Rob is confident he can get his crew to the top.
Rob has a seasoned and professional crew and with a journalist in tow, he is ready to procedure but always operates from a position of safety and care. It is attention to safety that causes Rob to be labeled a “hand holder” from rival guide Scott Fisher (Jake Gyllenhaal).
Despite their rival nature and different styles, Rob and Scott decide to combine forces and work with one another to get their clients up the mountain and work to secure the all-important climbing ropes.
As the climb goes well, we learn about the various characters and get some great supporting work from Sam Worthington, Josh Brolin, and the diverse and very engaging cast of the film.
Naturally things do not go as planned as a series of weather induced tragedies set in and forces the climbers to battle overwhelming odds to survive in a deadly race against time.
Aside from the amazing visual where you can really see the challenge and danger of climbing at an altitude usually reserved for 747s, the film which will be shown only in IMAX 3D screens shows the passion and endurance of those willing to pay a small fortune and risk death for one of the greatest challenges out there.
Director Baltasar Kormakur is to be praised for a visually compelling film that lets the setting and characters propel the story and does not resort to Hollywood gimmicks like over embellished storms, cave ins, and scenes common in most Disaster films and focused on the events as depicted by the survivors.
It was difficult at times to identify key characters as when they are all bundled up in a storm, telling who was who became a real challenge at times, but imagine how hard it was for those who were actually there.
If you are looking for a character driven action film with amazing scenery, you will want to make sure to see this film as it is as unforgettable a tale with amazing visuals.
http://sknr.net/2015/09/18/everest/
In the new film “Everest”, audiences get an up close look at the beauty and danger of the mountain as told by real men and women who risked it all for a shot at greatness.
Based on the books Into Thin Air and The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest by two of the survivors, the film looks at an expedition in 1996 that until recently was the most tragic climb on the mountain and caused real concern about the commercialization of the mountain.
Jason Clarke stars as Rob Hall, an experienced guide and climber who has operated a very successful company which charges $65,000 a head for the chance at greatness.
As the film opens, Rob is leaving his pregnant wife behind in New Zealand to lead a group up the mountain. The weather looks good during the brief window where they have a chance to climb to the top, and despite a record number of groups waiting to climb, Rob is confident he can get his crew to the top.
Rob has a seasoned and professional crew and with a journalist in tow, he is ready to procedure but always operates from a position of safety and care. It is attention to safety that causes Rob to be labeled a “hand holder” from rival guide Scott Fisher (Jake Gyllenhaal).
Despite their rival nature and different styles, Rob and Scott decide to combine forces and work with one another to get their clients up the mountain and work to secure the all-important climbing ropes.
As the climb goes well, we learn about the various characters and get some great supporting work from Sam Worthington, Josh Brolin, and the diverse and very engaging cast of the film.
Naturally things do not go as planned as a series of weather induced tragedies set in and forces the climbers to battle overwhelming odds to survive in a deadly race against time.
Aside from the amazing visual where you can really see the challenge and danger of climbing at an altitude usually reserved for 747s, the film which will be shown only in IMAX 3D screens shows the passion and endurance of those willing to pay a small fortune and risk death for one of the greatest challenges out there.
Director Baltasar Kormakur is to be praised for a visually compelling film that lets the setting and characters propel the story and does not resort to Hollywood gimmicks like over embellished storms, cave ins, and scenes common in most Disaster films and focused on the events as depicted by the survivors.
It was difficult at times to identify key characters as when they are all bundled up in a storm, telling who was who became a real challenge at times, but imagine how hard it was for those who were actually there.
If you are looking for a character driven action film with amazing scenery, you will want to make sure to see this film as it is as unforgettable a tale with amazing visuals.
http://sknr.net/2015/09/18/everest/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When the world falls under attack from a bizarre alien threat the world’s militaries unite to wage a desperate battle to save humanity. In the new film “Edge of Tomorrow”, Tom Cruise stars as Major Cage, a smug p.r. specialist who holds numerous interviews and press conferences convincing people to enlist and join the war effort and promising victory while keeping himself in safe locales far from the action.
When Cage learns that he is to be embedded with fighting units in a major offensive following the first victory by the humans, he balks and attempts to blackmail his new superior General Bringham (Paul Gleeson), into letting him stay away from combat zones.
Gleeson calls his bluff and Cage soon awakens at a forward base where his orders list him as a deserter who impersonates an officer and as such, is not to have any communication and is to be inserted into combat the following morning.
With no combat training at all since he was pulled from a P.R. firm and only had R.O.T.C. in college, Cage is highly unsuited to combat. He is not even capable of getting the weapons on his power suit to go off safety mode.
The battle goes badly and Cage and his fellow troops are decimated but shortly before his death, Cage gets himself up close and personal with the enemy and goes down in a blaze of glory.
Cage then unexpectedly awakens and it is the previous morning but he has all the knowledge of what happened previously. His efforts to warn his superiors fail and once again the invasion becomes a disaster. Cage is caught in a loop repeating the doomed mission but each time out he makes subtle changes and learns from his mistakes.
One such change has him encounter war hero Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt) who oddly enough recognizes what is happening to Cage and instructs him to find her when he awakens.
Despite some effort, Cage manages to locate and convince Rita and the two of them work to build Cages combat skills all the while attempting to understand the nature of the enemy and what is happening to them.
With the advantage of being able to repeat the same day over and over the unlikely pair becomes the best hope for humanity and set about to save the day.
The film has a very solid and enjoyable premise and I liked the way they handled Cruise’s character. When I first heard of the film I thought he was a bit old to play a combat rookie unless they were hard pressed and forced him into duty but even then he would have some kind of training.
The film has some great supporting performances and great FX that really popped in IMAX 3D. I really enjoyed the action and the story and while if you really stop and analyze it you may find issues with the time loops and possible paradoxes presented, the main thing is that it is an action film that actually gives fans a story, solid characters, and an interesting premise.
Cruise and Blunt work well with one another and I must say that the film is right there with “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” as the best film of the summer offerings to date in my opinion. Check this one out as you will not want to miss it.
http://sknr.net/2014/06/06/edge-tomorrow/
When Cage learns that he is to be embedded with fighting units in a major offensive following the first victory by the humans, he balks and attempts to blackmail his new superior General Bringham (Paul Gleeson), into letting him stay away from combat zones.
Gleeson calls his bluff and Cage soon awakens at a forward base where his orders list him as a deserter who impersonates an officer and as such, is not to have any communication and is to be inserted into combat the following morning.
With no combat training at all since he was pulled from a P.R. firm and only had R.O.T.C. in college, Cage is highly unsuited to combat. He is not even capable of getting the weapons on his power suit to go off safety mode.
The battle goes badly and Cage and his fellow troops are decimated but shortly before his death, Cage gets himself up close and personal with the enemy and goes down in a blaze of glory.
Cage then unexpectedly awakens and it is the previous morning but he has all the knowledge of what happened previously. His efforts to warn his superiors fail and once again the invasion becomes a disaster. Cage is caught in a loop repeating the doomed mission but each time out he makes subtle changes and learns from his mistakes.
One such change has him encounter war hero Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt) who oddly enough recognizes what is happening to Cage and instructs him to find her when he awakens.
Despite some effort, Cage manages to locate and convince Rita and the two of them work to build Cages combat skills all the while attempting to understand the nature of the enemy and what is happening to them.
With the advantage of being able to repeat the same day over and over the unlikely pair becomes the best hope for humanity and set about to save the day.
The film has a very solid and enjoyable premise and I liked the way they handled Cruise’s character. When I first heard of the film I thought he was a bit old to play a combat rookie unless they were hard pressed and forced him into duty but even then he would have some kind of training.
The film has some great supporting performances and great FX that really popped in IMAX 3D. I really enjoyed the action and the story and while if you really stop and analyze it you may find issues with the time loops and possible paradoxes presented, the main thing is that it is an action film that actually gives fans a story, solid characters, and an interesting premise.
Cruise and Blunt work well with one another and I must say that the film is right there with “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” as the best film of the summer offerings to date in my opinion. Check this one out as you will not want to miss it.
http://sknr.net/2014/06/06/edge-tomorrow/