Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Lee (2222 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Apr 2, 2019 (Updated Apr 5, 2019)
Not only have I not read the Stephen King book that Pet Sematary is based on, I haven't even seen the original 1989 movie either. As much as I feel ashamed for completely missing out on both of those, it also meant that I was able to head into this movie with nothing to compare it to and no idea of what to expect, other than a bit of creepy-burial-ground-raising-the-dead type stuff that the first trailer covered. One quick note on the trailers before I begin though - the most recent one, which luckily I only saw after I had seen the movie, pretty much gives away the entire plot. Granted, if you're a fan of Stephen Kings work, or even the original movie, then you're going to know what to expect anyway. But, if you're like me - someone who enjoys a good horror movie, but doesn't read books and has gaping holes in his movie viewing history, then try and give the trailers a miss on this occasion before heading into the cinema.
Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) is a Boston doctor who moves his family to the (hopefully) less chaotic setting of rural Maine - wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), 8 year old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), toddler Gage and friendly family cat Church. However, the family soon discover that their house is located right alongside a road which is prone to noisy trucks suddenly speeding past - our first jump scare and something already given away by the trailers! Those trucks also have a tendency to end the lives of any local pets who might happen to wander out in front of them, so it's pretty handy that there happens to be a Native American graveyard out in the woods at the back of the Creed's new house.
The local children make good use of the area, carrying out a funeral procession while wearing masks before burying deceased pets there, and they have also erected a sign - "Pet Sematary", which is nailed to one of the trees outside of it. Unfortunately, it's not too long before Church falls victim to a passing truck, at which point friendly neighbour Jud (John Lithgow) tells Louis of a special burial ritual which can be carried out on an area of ground located even further into the forest. It's a ritual that can bring the dead back to life so, in order to avoid upsetting daughter Ellie, Louis keeps the death a secret until he and Jud can head out late that night to perform the ritual with Church. Sure enough, Church is back with the family the next morning - alive, but looking very disheveled and in a seriously grumpy mood. He's not quite the cute little bundle of joy he once was - as Jud puts it, "Sometimes dead is better".
After banging on earlier about spoilers for movies, I feel it would be wrong of me to go and do the same thing here. If you're familiar with the story, then you'll know what happens anyway, although there is a moderate change of detail in this particular version which has already had a few die hard Stephen King fans up in arms. I'll just say that the special properties of the burial ground get used on a few more occasions during the course of the movie, with increasingly devastating consequences, and I personally felt that the change to the source material totally worked within the confines of this version of the story.
Ok, so what did I think of the movie overall? Well, I found Pet Sematary to be pretty intense, even more so than 'Us' recently. There were a couple of guys to the side of me in the cinema who were sitting forward on the edge of their seat for the majority of the movie just hyperventilating - I thought they were going to have a heart attack at one point! Yes, there are some jump scares, but this was more the kind of nightmare horror that I loved while watching 'Us' and it had me gripped to my seat for a good 80% or so of its run-time. Everyone involved in the movie is on top form - the children are outstanding, as is Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, even the cat! The dread-filled atmosphere, the tragedy and the horror of it all, it really resonated with me and I came away from this exhausted but happy!
Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) is a Boston doctor who moves his family to the (hopefully) less chaotic setting of rural Maine - wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), 8 year old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), toddler Gage and friendly family cat Church. However, the family soon discover that their house is located right alongside a road which is prone to noisy trucks suddenly speeding past - our first jump scare and something already given away by the trailers! Those trucks also have a tendency to end the lives of any local pets who might happen to wander out in front of them, so it's pretty handy that there happens to be a Native American graveyard out in the woods at the back of the Creed's new house.
The local children make good use of the area, carrying out a funeral procession while wearing masks before burying deceased pets there, and they have also erected a sign - "Pet Sematary", which is nailed to one of the trees outside of it. Unfortunately, it's not too long before Church falls victim to a passing truck, at which point friendly neighbour Jud (John Lithgow) tells Louis of a special burial ritual which can be carried out on an area of ground located even further into the forest. It's a ritual that can bring the dead back to life so, in order to avoid upsetting daughter Ellie, Louis keeps the death a secret until he and Jud can head out late that night to perform the ritual with Church. Sure enough, Church is back with the family the next morning - alive, but looking very disheveled and in a seriously grumpy mood. He's not quite the cute little bundle of joy he once was - as Jud puts it, "Sometimes dead is better".
After banging on earlier about spoilers for movies, I feel it would be wrong of me to go and do the same thing here. If you're familiar with the story, then you'll know what happens anyway, although there is a moderate change of detail in this particular version which has already had a few die hard Stephen King fans up in arms. I'll just say that the special properties of the burial ground get used on a few more occasions during the course of the movie, with increasingly devastating consequences, and I personally felt that the change to the source material totally worked within the confines of this version of the story.
Ok, so what did I think of the movie overall? Well, I found Pet Sematary to be pretty intense, even more so than 'Us' recently. There were a couple of guys to the side of me in the cinema who were sitting forward on the edge of their seat for the majority of the movie just hyperventilating - I thought they were going to have a heart attack at one point! Yes, there are some jump scares, but this was more the kind of nightmare horror that I loved while watching 'Us' and it had me gripped to my seat for a good 80% or so of its run-time. Everyone involved in the movie is on top form - the children are outstanding, as is Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, even the cat! The dread-filled atmosphere, the tragedy and the horror of it all, it really resonated with me and I came away from this exhausted but happy!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Transformers (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
Transformers being made into a live action film sounds like every fan's dream come true on paper, but throw Michael Bay into the equation and you lose a good portion of that audience. Bay is a director who tends to rely solely on action sequences. He's known for creating superb and intense scenes in his films, but they always rely on heavy explosions or pure destruction. That's not to say that's a bad thing, but it's hard to name a memorable scene in a Michael Bay film that doesn't include those elements. Everything else in his films (the story, the dialogue, the initial scenes that bridge the gap between each action sequence, etc) all seem to be lacking that extra spark his action sequences have. So those doubts carried over to Transformers and Bay's version seems to be more enjoyable for people who aren't rabid fans of the franchise.
The film revolves around the Autobots fighting off the Decepticons from gaining possession of the Allspark, which has the power to save them from extinction or grant them ultimate power. Optimus Prime, the leader of the Autobots, is trying to save Cybertron (their home planet) while Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons, wants to conquer the universe and will do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. In 1935, Megatron had found the Allspark on Earth in the Arctic Ocean, but was eventually frozen in his quest to capture it. Megatron used the last of his energy to embed the location of the Allspark in the glasses of a captain who accidentally found Megatron buried deep beneath the ice. That captain was the great, great grandfather of Sam Witwicky who is now in possession of said glasses. In the present day, Sam's father buys Sam his first car; a yellow Camaro which turns out to be Autobot, Bumblebee. As the Transformers arrive on Earth, their first objectives are to find Sam Witwicky, acquire possession of the glasses, and hopefully attain an advantage over their enemy.
The movie relies solely on giant robots fighting each other to be the selling point of the film, so if you're expecting much else story-wise then you'll probably walk away from the film disappointed. The special effects are top notch as the Transformers themselves look incredibly realistic. Scenes in other films that rely heavily on characters that are purely computer generated have a sense of being unrealistic since it's usually noticeable that the actors on screen are reacting to something that isn't really there. CGI characters don't usually look this good though. Most of the time, when the actors interact with the computer generated characters, those actors also become computer generated. Like when Doctor Octopus carries Mary Jane up a skyscraper after kidnapping her from the coffee shop in Spider-Man 2 is a great example. They're both noticeably computer generated. While in Transformers, the actors either weren't CGI or the effect was achieved to a greater degree because it looked phenomenal and believable the entire time. As believable as transforming robots can be anyway. The fight scenes between the Autobots and the Decepticons are where the movie hooks its audience though. There is so much going on that the movie requires multiple viewings just to see everything that's going on.
While Transformers is an incredibly fun ride, it does have its down side. The humor of the film is often on the cheesy side and not really funny at all ("I NEED A CREDIT CARD," the entire Glen Whitmann character, Jazz's dialogue, "This is easily 100 times cooler than Armageddon," etc). A trait that seems to carry over into Revenge of the Fallen as the same sense of humor is in the trailer footage. Another issue is the action scenes. While they are intriguing, they're also incredibly confusing most of the time. The camera is almost always too close during those sequences and telling the difference between an Autobot and a Decepticon while they're rolling around in the air is near impossible. The camera looks like it's pulled out a bit in Revenge of the Fallen, so hopefully that problem has been addressed and taken care of. Looks like we'll find out June 24th.
Despite hardcore Transformers fans being displeased (to say the least) with the film, it can't be denied that the 2007 film was one of the biggest blockbuster films at the box office that year. Transformers is exciting and action packed from beginning to end. It is basically a two and a half hour adrenaline rush. So, bottom line, see Transformers if you're looking for an action packed adventure that'll make your heart race and put you on the edge of your seat.
The film revolves around the Autobots fighting off the Decepticons from gaining possession of the Allspark, which has the power to save them from extinction or grant them ultimate power. Optimus Prime, the leader of the Autobots, is trying to save Cybertron (their home planet) while Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons, wants to conquer the universe and will do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. In 1935, Megatron had found the Allspark on Earth in the Arctic Ocean, but was eventually frozen in his quest to capture it. Megatron used the last of his energy to embed the location of the Allspark in the glasses of a captain who accidentally found Megatron buried deep beneath the ice. That captain was the great, great grandfather of Sam Witwicky who is now in possession of said glasses. In the present day, Sam's father buys Sam his first car; a yellow Camaro which turns out to be Autobot, Bumblebee. As the Transformers arrive on Earth, their first objectives are to find Sam Witwicky, acquire possession of the glasses, and hopefully attain an advantage over their enemy.
The movie relies solely on giant robots fighting each other to be the selling point of the film, so if you're expecting much else story-wise then you'll probably walk away from the film disappointed. The special effects are top notch as the Transformers themselves look incredibly realistic. Scenes in other films that rely heavily on characters that are purely computer generated have a sense of being unrealistic since it's usually noticeable that the actors on screen are reacting to something that isn't really there. CGI characters don't usually look this good though. Most of the time, when the actors interact with the computer generated characters, those actors also become computer generated. Like when Doctor Octopus carries Mary Jane up a skyscraper after kidnapping her from the coffee shop in Spider-Man 2 is a great example. They're both noticeably computer generated. While in Transformers, the actors either weren't CGI or the effect was achieved to a greater degree because it looked phenomenal and believable the entire time. As believable as transforming robots can be anyway. The fight scenes between the Autobots and the Decepticons are where the movie hooks its audience though. There is so much going on that the movie requires multiple viewings just to see everything that's going on.
While Transformers is an incredibly fun ride, it does have its down side. The humor of the film is often on the cheesy side and not really funny at all ("I NEED A CREDIT CARD," the entire Glen Whitmann character, Jazz's dialogue, "This is easily 100 times cooler than Armageddon," etc). A trait that seems to carry over into Revenge of the Fallen as the same sense of humor is in the trailer footage. Another issue is the action scenes. While they are intriguing, they're also incredibly confusing most of the time. The camera is almost always too close during those sequences and telling the difference between an Autobot and a Decepticon while they're rolling around in the air is near impossible. The camera looks like it's pulled out a bit in Revenge of the Fallen, so hopefully that problem has been addressed and taken care of. Looks like we'll find out June 24th.
Despite hardcore Transformers fans being displeased (to say the least) with the film, it can't be denied that the 2007 film was one of the biggest blockbuster films at the box office that year. Transformers is exciting and action packed from beginning to end. It is basically a two and a half hour adrenaline rush. So, bottom line, see Transformers if you're looking for an action packed adventure that'll make your heart race and put you on the edge of your seat.
An Adventure in Statistics: The Reality Enigma
Book
Shortlisted for the British Book Design and Production Awards 2016 Shortlisted for the Association...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Digimon Adventure: Last Evolution Kizuna (2020) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
Since 1999, the anime Digimon has had multiple reiterations full of characters known as ‘Digi-Destined’, kids who are connected to a Digimon, or Digital Monsters. As a kid who grew up watching the original Digimon Adventures (1999), the first series of the show holds a place near and dear in my heart. So when Toei Animation announced that six films were being released from 2015-2017 with the original Digimon Adventures characters just as teens, the nostalgia wave hit me hard. While those films were great I thought that was the end of the original Digimon series group for good. Oh was I wrong!
Digimon Adventure: The Last Evolution Kizuna (2020), follows the events of Digimon Adventure Tri, it’s been a couple of years and the Digi-Destined are all off pursuing careers, or college. To break it down; Sora (Colleen O’Shaughnessey) is working on becoming a flower arranger, Mimi (Kate Higgins) is working at an online start-up, Joe (Robbie Daymond) is working to become a doctor, Izzy (Mona Marshall) to no one’s surprise is the president of a company, and Matt (Nicolas Roye) and Tai (Joshua Seth) are about to finish up college. TK (Johnny Yong Bosch) and Kari (Tara Sands) are also in the mix, but the story’s focus is on Tai and Matt. Throughout the entire Digimon franchise, these two are rivals as well as best friends and as the characters have gotten older the best friends bit is more of the focus. Now Tai and Matt are having to cope with the reality of growing up along side their digimon Agumon (Tom Fahn) and Gabumon (Kirk Thornton), but what does that mean for all the Digi-Destined and their Digimon?
To not spoil anything, the core group is faced with the issue of Digi-Destined across the globe falling into mysterious comas. When a research team from the United States shows up asking for the Digi-Destined’s help to fight against a new Digimon believed to be the cause of the global issue is really where the story starts to flesh out beyond what the main 8 characters are doing with their lives. However, can finding out the truth behind this mysterious new Digimon and will figuring out what to do with their futures work out for Matt and Tai? Will they be able to save the Digi-Destined across the global or is something lurking in plain sight that will put a stop to their plans? All these questions and more are answered in the film, you’ll just have to watch as see!
The film explores some major themes, like growing up, the ebbs and flows of friendship, and being able to let go. All themes that are important, as Digimon Adventure’s (1999) original audience is at that age of figuring out what do you want to do with your life? or what is your purpose or goal for the future? While these questions are far greater then one or two words or even tied down to an age, the film uses them to direct the narrative of how Tai and Matt develop throughout the story. To be transparent, I cried about 5 minutes after the film ended as it felt like a true ending for the main characters. The film pulls on all the right heartstrings as well as gives some good conflict for viewers to enjoy. Also if that wasn’t enough, Toei’s animation style for the series has changed throughout the years and the animation in the film was gorgeous. I would watch it again just for that alone, however, there are so many reasons to watch it.
I feel this film gives people who were die-hard Digimon Adventure (1999) fans closure in a way not many series gives. There is even some influence of Digimon Adventure 02 (2000) within the film and some other familiar characters so if your a fan of the second series it’s a great addition. Like many films who ride the nostalgia wave, Digimon Adventure: The Last Evolution Kizuna (2020) is no different as it make your laugh, cry, and remember why you love a franchise so much. So give it a shot if you were a fan of Digimon, love a good anime movie, or just wanna relive a childhood classic! However, to those not familiar with the series, it might be challenging not knowing the characters backstories as the movie like the series has an emphasis on their relationships as friends. However, they are rebooting the original Digimon Aventures so thats a place to start too!
Digimon Adventure: The Last Evolution Kizuna (2020), follows the events of Digimon Adventure Tri, it’s been a couple of years and the Digi-Destined are all off pursuing careers, or college. To break it down; Sora (Colleen O’Shaughnessey) is working on becoming a flower arranger, Mimi (Kate Higgins) is working at an online start-up, Joe (Robbie Daymond) is working to become a doctor, Izzy (Mona Marshall) to no one’s surprise is the president of a company, and Matt (Nicolas Roye) and Tai (Joshua Seth) are about to finish up college. TK (Johnny Yong Bosch) and Kari (Tara Sands) are also in the mix, but the story’s focus is on Tai and Matt. Throughout the entire Digimon franchise, these two are rivals as well as best friends and as the characters have gotten older the best friends bit is more of the focus. Now Tai and Matt are having to cope with the reality of growing up along side their digimon Agumon (Tom Fahn) and Gabumon (Kirk Thornton), but what does that mean for all the Digi-Destined and their Digimon?
To not spoil anything, the core group is faced with the issue of Digi-Destined across the globe falling into mysterious comas. When a research team from the United States shows up asking for the Digi-Destined’s help to fight against a new Digimon believed to be the cause of the global issue is really where the story starts to flesh out beyond what the main 8 characters are doing with their lives. However, can finding out the truth behind this mysterious new Digimon and will figuring out what to do with their futures work out for Matt and Tai? Will they be able to save the Digi-Destined across the global or is something lurking in plain sight that will put a stop to their plans? All these questions and more are answered in the film, you’ll just have to watch as see!
The film explores some major themes, like growing up, the ebbs and flows of friendship, and being able to let go. All themes that are important, as Digimon Adventure’s (1999) original audience is at that age of figuring out what do you want to do with your life? or what is your purpose or goal for the future? While these questions are far greater then one or two words or even tied down to an age, the film uses them to direct the narrative of how Tai and Matt develop throughout the story. To be transparent, I cried about 5 minutes after the film ended as it felt like a true ending for the main characters. The film pulls on all the right heartstrings as well as gives some good conflict for viewers to enjoy. Also if that wasn’t enough, Toei’s animation style for the series has changed throughout the years and the animation in the film was gorgeous. I would watch it again just for that alone, however, there are so many reasons to watch it.
I feel this film gives people who were die-hard Digimon Adventure (1999) fans closure in a way not many series gives. There is even some influence of Digimon Adventure 02 (2000) within the film and some other familiar characters so if your a fan of the second series it’s a great addition. Like many films who ride the nostalgia wave, Digimon Adventure: The Last Evolution Kizuna (2020) is no different as it make your laugh, cry, and remember why you love a franchise so much. So give it a shot if you were a fan of Digimon, love a good anime movie, or just wanna relive a childhood classic! However, to those not familiar with the series, it might be challenging not knowing the characters backstories as the movie like the series has an emphasis on their relationships as friends. However, they are rebooting the original Digimon Aventures so thats a place to start too!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl With All the Gifts (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
An Adam’s Apple for Teacher.
I remember once having a ridiculous drunken dispute at a works Christmas party many year’s ago that went along the lines of “if you had the chance to save the world, but had to kill your child to do it, what would you do”. There’s a variant of this conundrum at the heart of this brilliant new film from Colm McCarthy, best know for his TV work on shows like “Peaky Blinders”, “Sherlock” and “Dr Who”.
As most people already realise, this is a ‘Zombie film’ (cue, a number of other single blokes in the cinema) and illustrates the dangers of not treating that Athlete’s Foot as soon as it appears! I would normally provide a quick synopsis here, but I really think this is a case in point where it is best to go into the film as blind as possible to the story and let it envelop you. (This includes not watching the whole trailer if possible.) To merely set the scene, we open with a morning school ritual like none you’ve seen before: children strapped to wheelchairs by heavily armed military in their cells; wheeled to an underground classroom; then made to sit in serried rows being taught by their teacher Helen Justineau (a deliciously un-made-up and natural Gemma Arterton). What IS going on? Who ARE these children? WHY are the soldiers so scared and dismissive of them?
The ever-great Paddy Considine (“Pride”) plays army Sergeant Parks (who also has a bit of a crush on Helen) and Glenn Close plays Dr Caroline Caldwell, who is studying the children in more ways than one.
This trio of stars, supported notably later in the film by Fisayo Akinade as the trooper Kieran, turn in what is a superb ensemble performance. As for Glenn Close, I have never quite been able to shake her awful “silk blouse” performance in “Air Force One” from my mind, but here she is quite memerising in the role of the Doctor on a mission: I would suggest a career best. Her final scene reflects such a complex range of emotions, and is brilliantly executed. And Gemma Arterton pulls out all the emotional stops in what is also one of the performances of the year.
But good as these performances are, they would be nothing without the central performance of young Sennia Nanua as the titular “Girl”. I have made the point before that there should be an Oscar category for “Young Actors” rather than pitch them into the adult categories like Quvenzhane Wallis and Anna Paquin were (successfully). Here in her debut feature performance Sennia is just mesmerising and (provided this film gets the recognition it justly deserves) she should be a shoe-in for the BAFTA Rising Star award next year, if not an Actress nomination. A young lady most definitely to watch.
Also assuming a starring role is Chilean-born composer Cristobal Tapia de Veer’s astonishingly effective music which drives up the tension superbly. This is his feature film debut and another name to watch.
The screenplay by Mike Carey from his original novel is beautifully crafted, with some great one liners dropped in to ease the tension a notch. And the story adds a level of emotional depth and angst that surpasses other films of this genre, at least as far back as the “28 Days” films.
Astonishingly, the film was made on a budget of 4 (FOUR!) Million Pounds, giving it a BvS quotient of 2.1%!! Every penny of that budget is up on the screen, and whilst you might like to pick at a few of the matte paintings and effects, it is a remarkably achievement in special effects (Nick Rideout is the SF supervisor) and production value.
So, its great! Go see it… but with a few caveats: it is a zombie film, and it ranks about an 8.9 on the splattometer scale, which might not be to some tastes; definitely don’t go to see it if you are pregnant (though I am constantly reminded how I took my heavily pregnant wife in 1985 to see “A really great film called ‘Alien'”); and you might want to avoid it if you are a great cat or dog lover, or indeed a pigeon-fancier. Other than that, get yourself down to a multiplex and see this great British film: surely a classic to be recognised for years to come.
As most people already realise, this is a ‘Zombie film’ (cue, a number of other single blokes in the cinema) and illustrates the dangers of not treating that Athlete’s Foot as soon as it appears! I would normally provide a quick synopsis here, but I really think this is a case in point where it is best to go into the film as blind as possible to the story and let it envelop you. (This includes not watching the whole trailer if possible.) To merely set the scene, we open with a morning school ritual like none you’ve seen before: children strapped to wheelchairs by heavily armed military in their cells; wheeled to an underground classroom; then made to sit in serried rows being taught by their teacher Helen Justineau (a deliciously un-made-up and natural Gemma Arterton). What IS going on? Who ARE these children? WHY are the soldiers so scared and dismissive of them?
The ever-great Paddy Considine (“Pride”) plays army Sergeant Parks (who also has a bit of a crush on Helen) and Glenn Close plays Dr Caroline Caldwell, who is studying the children in more ways than one.
This trio of stars, supported notably later in the film by Fisayo Akinade as the trooper Kieran, turn in what is a superb ensemble performance. As for Glenn Close, I have never quite been able to shake her awful “silk blouse” performance in “Air Force One” from my mind, but here she is quite memerising in the role of the Doctor on a mission: I would suggest a career best. Her final scene reflects such a complex range of emotions, and is brilliantly executed. And Gemma Arterton pulls out all the emotional stops in what is also one of the performances of the year.
But good as these performances are, they would be nothing without the central performance of young Sennia Nanua as the titular “Girl”. I have made the point before that there should be an Oscar category for “Young Actors” rather than pitch them into the adult categories like Quvenzhane Wallis and Anna Paquin were (successfully). Here in her debut feature performance Sennia is just mesmerising and (provided this film gets the recognition it justly deserves) she should be a shoe-in for the BAFTA Rising Star award next year, if not an Actress nomination. A young lady most definitely to watch.
Also assuming a starring role is Chilean-born composer Cristobal Tapia de Veer’s astonishingly effective music which drives up the tension superbly. This is his feature film debut and another name to watch.
The screenplay by Mike Carey from his original novel is beautifully crafted, with some great one liners dropped in to ease the tension a notch. And the story adds a level of emotional depth and angst that surpasses other films of this genre, at least as far back as the “28 Days” films.
Astonishingly, the film was made on a budget of 4 (FOUR!) Million Pounds, giving it a BvS quotient of 2.1%!! Every penny of that budget is up on the screen, and whilst you might like to pick at a few of the matte paintings and effects, it is a remarkably achievement in special effects (Nick Rideout is the SF supervisor) and production value.
So, its great! Go see it… but with a few caveats: it is a zombie film, and it ranks about an 8.9 on the splattometer scale, which might not be to some tastes; definitely don’t go to see it if you are pregnant (though I am constantly reminded how I took my heavily pregnant wife in 1985 to see “A really great film called ‘Alien'”); and you might want to avoid it if you are a great cat or dog lover, or indeed a pigeon-fancier. Other than that, get yourself down to a multiplex and see this great British film: surely a classic to be recognised for years to come.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated Home Fire in Books
May 10, 2018
Two families both from Britain and both with Muslim backgrounds, but from different socioeconomic classes. The Pasha Family, Isma, Aneeka, and Parvaiz, they have lost both of their parents and Isma is the head of the household. When Aneeka and Parvaiz have finished school, she decides that it is now time for her to go to America to finish her studies to be a doctor. With the help of a family friend she does just that, but worries constantly about her brother and sister back home. While in America she meets, Eammon Lone. His father is a high political figure where they are from and it's strange to meet someone like this in America.
This book was a slow start for me. I wanted to dive right in, but it was not very easy. The subject matter is deep. The Pasha family lost their father because he decided to join the ranks of the Taliban and he was killed for it. The fear is that Parvaiz, the brother will go through the same fate. When Isma loses contact with him while she is in America, she really starts to get scared and when the same becomes true of her sister Aneeka, she worries even more. What can she do so far away from her family in order to help them. Maybe with her connection now to Eammon, she will be able to help her family.
Eammon decides to help Isma out, but not in a way she expects. He is returning to England as she is about to send a parcel to her family. Eammon offers to put it in the post in England, but ends up delivering it himself and meeting Aneeka. There was an immediate attraction for him, but Aneeka has an ulterior motive. While Eammon be able to detect this or will he find out too late. When Aneeka asks Eammon to talk to his father about helping her brother return to the country, he feels like he will be able to help her, but his father doesn't want to have anything to do with the Pasha family given their father's past.
How will this turn out for everyone involved. Will they be able to settle their differences in order to help a young man who has made some stupid choices?
This book was a slow start for me. I wanted to dive right in, but it was not very easy. The subject matter is deep. The Pasha family lost their father because he decided to join the ranks of the Taliban and he was killed for it. The fear is that Parvaiz, the brother will go through the same fate. When Isma loses contact with him while she is in America, she really starts to get scared and when the same becomes true of her sister Aneeka, she worries even more. What can she do so far away from her family in order to help them. Maybe with her connection now to Eammon, she will be able to help her family.
Eammon decides to help Isma out, but not in a way she expects. He is returning to England as she is about to send a parcel to her family. Eammon offers to put it in the post in England, but ends up delivering it himself and meeting Aneeka. There was an immediate attraction for him, but Aneeka has an ulterior motive. While Eammon be able to detect this or will he find out too late. When Aneeka asks Eammon to talk to his father about helping her brother return to the country, he feels like he will be able to help her, but his father doesn't want to have anything to do with the Pasha family given their father's past.
How will this turn out for everyone involved. Will they be able to settle their differences in order to help a young man who has made some stupid choices?
Janeeny (200 KP) rated Ever Alice in Books
May 9, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Unfortunately I was quite disappointed with this book. Mostly because it had potential, but just fell really short of the mark.
Alice is now 15 years old and after years of telling people about her adventures in Wonderland her parents are starting to question her sanity and take her to see a specialised doctor at an Asylum in Switzerland. Sadly things are not quite what they seem at the asylum, but just when things appear to be at their worst for Alice a familiar white rabbit helps her escape the asylum and she finds herself back in Wonderland. What follows is actually quite an intricate tale of suspicion and treachery, reality and fantasy. I’m just not sure it works as an ‘Alice in wonderland’ tale.
I was impressed at first as the author really did seem to capture the essence of the silliness of wonderland, with some scenes that wouldn’t be out of place in a Monty Python sketch or a Mel Brooks movie, but after a while it began to feel like the author was trying a bit too hard and it started to become a slightly repetitive and tedious.
The Character development didn’t really work for me either, especially The Queen of Hearts. For me she was a bit two-dimensional, and although the author tries to give her a bit of a back story it just doesn’t adhere to the character.
Some aspects of the language also grated on me. For instance, when parents are being referred to as Mum and Papa, it doesn’t sit well with me. It’s either going to be mum and dad or mama and papa. I know that is probably just a personal peeve of mine, but every time I came across that phrasing it just halted the story for me. Oh and don’t get me started on the Pop culture references! An actress named Marilyn Montague, who sounds very similar to another well know Marilyn, and a boyband called ‘Mice to men’. They may have been put in for humour, but they just didn’t seem to flow with the story.
As I said, in essence it was a good story, if a little predictable at the end, I just feel that using it as a ‘re-imagining’ of Alice left it with some expectations that it just couldn’t live up to.
Alice is now 15 years old and after years of telling people about her adventures in Wonderland her parents are starting to question her sanity and take her to see a specialised doctor at an Asylum in Switzerland. Sadly things are not quite what they seem at the asylum, but just when things appear to be at their worst for Alice a familiar white rabbit helps her escape the asylum and she finds herself back in Wonderland. What follows is actually quite an intricate tale of suspicion and treachery, reality and fantasy. I’m just not sure it works as an ‘Alice in wonderland’ tale.
I was impressed at first as the author really did seem to capture the essence of the silliness of wonderland, with some scenes that wouldn’t be out of place in a Monty Python sketch or a Mel Brooks movie, but after a while it began to feel like the author was trying a bit too hard and it started to become a slightly repetitive and tedious.
The Character development didn’t really work for me either, especially The Queen of Hearts. For me she was a bit two-dimensional, and although the author tries to give her a bit of a back story it just doesn’t adhere to the character.
Some aspects of the language also grated on me. For instance, when parents are being referred to as Mum and Papa, it doesn’t sit well with me. It’s either going to be mum and dad or mama and papa. I know that is probably just a personal peeve of mine, but every time I came across that phrasing it just halted the story for me. Oh and don’t get me started on the Pop culture references! An actress named Marilyn Montague, who sounds very similar to another well know Marilyn, and a boyband called ‘Mice to men’. They may have been put in for humour, but they just didn’t seem to flow with the story.
As I said, in essence it was a good story, if a little predictable at the end, I just feel that using it as a ‘re-imagining’ of Alice left it with some expectations that it just couldn’t live up to.
Sfatul Medicului
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
Descriere (RO): SfatulMedicului APP - Primesti sfaturi medicale, iti verifici simtomele, iti...
Anatomy Lectures Topics in Focus
Medical and Education
5.0
Rate It
App
Learn human anatomy with this app - our series of 38 mini-lectures, each focusing on a single topic...