Search
Search results
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
May 13, 2019
JUSTICE FOR THE LEAGUE
Contains spoilers, click to show
As much as it pains me to acknowledge it, this film got slaughtered upon its' release (and has endured much ridicule ever since)! Personally speaking....I don't get why.
Everyone and their dog - in reviewing this movie, quote the poor CGI, the fact that Steppenwolf is an ineffective villain, the obvious mish-mash of two directorial styles, weak storyline, oh...and the whole moustache thing. Bore, bore, bore. If anyone comes up with a valid reason for why they hate this film that they haven't read anywhere else a dozen times before then I might entertain them......nah, I won't, because I loved JL!
The opening scene shows us some 'amateur' style recorded footage of a brief conversation with Superman - a very short sequence that was clearly filmed by Joss Whedon. And yes, it is very obvious - and would be to someone unaware of the whole 'moustache-gate' affair, that something's wrong with Henry Cavill's upper lip. Does that detract from the experience? Is it really that much a big deal? No, it is not. And that's all I'll say on that aspect.
There is a very basic plot concerning Steppenwolf and his return to Earth to reclaim the three Mother Boxes which - when brought together, form 'The Unity' with which he hopes to transform the planet and get back in favour with his nephew (Darkseid). These boxes were left on Earth a long time ago following a battle with Steppenwolf (shown in Flashback) and placed into the care of the Atlanteans, the Amazons, and the Tribes of Man. We are given this background exposition fairly early on in proceedings from Diana Prince (Wonder Woman) which effectively sums up the gist of the movie - no criticism there. The first half of the film concerns Diana and Bruce Wayne's (Batman) efforts to bring together a small group of Meta-Humans in order to tackle the imminent threat balanced against Steppenwolf's successful recovery of two of the Boxes. Do we need a more complex plot?
After an initial encounter with the villain of the piece in which the newly formed League are knocked on their proverbial backsides Batman comes up with a way to resurrect the deceased Superman, involving a Mother Box, the recovered Kryptonian Scout Ship, and the Speedforce. To quote The Flash (aka Barry Allen, aka Ezra Miller) things go a bit 'Pet Sematary-y' as the resurrected Man Of Steel goes up against the JL in a confused fit of rage. The sequence depicting the skirmish is a highlight of the movie, and anyone who got a little annoyed t how much Batman was hell bent on persecuting Supes in BVS will get some satisfaction from hearing the line "Do you bleed?"!
It isn't long before the Superman we all know and love (although perhaps not the one from his darker portrayal in the previous two movies in which he appeared) returns - thanks to some intervention from Lois Lane, and joins his fellow heroes in their final battle with Steppenwolf.
Simple plot I agree but this is a story about individuals coming together in the name of hope. Each character gives enough that the audience cares about them, even if some of them could have been given a bit more to play with (sounds like sequel material to me!). Wonder Woman effectively becomes the Leader of the team - exorcising her demons in the process (see her solo movie for more) and Gal Gadot is great.
The battle scenes are fantastic - the attack on Themyscira by Steppenwolf being one such example, and complemented by the CGI. Yeah, I've heard the whole 'poor CGI' thing but frankly.... whatever?! Had I not stupidly read the reviews before seeing the film I might not have spent the running time watching the villain and thinking "Is he a poor villain?" (I came away thinking "Nah, he worked for me!")
Henry Cavill didn't get half as much screen time as the other characters in the League and it looks as if most of the Zac Snyder material featuring his Superman ended up on the cutting room floor, but he is one of the highlights. I will agree with the critics that WB seriously messed up with their marketing strategy in which they essentially 'excluded him' from all promotional material. I now eagerly await for Man of Steel 2 where we'll get to see more of the 'fun' Supes that we got in this movie.
I saw this film three times at the cinema and now own on Blu Ray. Fantastic film for the JL's first outing on the big screen. And you know what?
You are allowed to enjoy both the Justice League AND The Avengers!!
Everyone and their dog - in reviewing this movie, quote the poor CGI, the fact that Steppenwolf is an ineffective villain, the obvious mish-mash of two directorial styles, weak storyline, oh...and the whole moustache thing. Bore, bore, bore. If anyone comes up with a valid reason for why they hate this film that they haven't read anywhere else a dozen times before then I might entertain them......nah, I won't, because I loved JL!
The opening scene shows us some 'amateur' style recorded footage of a brief conversation with Superman - a very short sequence that was clearly filmed by Joss Whedon. And yes, it is very obvious - and would be to someone unaware of the whole 'moustache-gate' affair, that something's wrong with Henry Cavill's upper lip. Does that detract from the experience? Is it really that much a big deal? No, it is not. And that's all I'll say on that aspect.
There is a very basic plot concerning Steppenwolf and his return to Earth to reclaim the three Mother Boxes which - when brought together, form 'The Unity' with which he hopes to transform the planet and get back in favour with his nephew (Darkseid). These boxes were left on Earth a long time ago following a battle with Steppenwolf (shown in Flashback) and placed into the care of the Atlanteans, the Amazons, and the Tribes of Man. We are given this background exposition fairly early on in proceedings from Diana Prince (Wonder Woman) which effectively sums up the gist of the movie - no criticism there. The first half of the film concerns Diana and Bruce Wayne's (Batman) efforts to bring together a small group of Meta-Humans in order to tackle the imminent threat balanced against Steppenwolf's successful recovery of two of the Boxes. Do we need a more complex plot?
After an initial encounter with the villain of the piece in which the newly formed League are knocked on their proverbial backsides Batman comes up with a way to resurrect the deceased Superman, involving a Mother Box, the recovered Kryptonian Scout Ship, and the Speedforce. To quote The Flash (aka Barry Allen, aka Ezra Miller) things go a bit 'Pet Sematary-y' as the resurrected Man Of Steel goes up against the JL in a confused fit of rage. The sequence depicting the skirmish is a highlight of the movie, and anyone who got a little annoyed t how much Batman was hell bent on persecuting Supes in BVS will get some satisfaction from hearing the line "Do you bleed?"!
It isn't long before the Superman we all know and love (although perhaps not the one from his darker portrayal in the previous two movies in which he appeared) returns - thanks to some intervention from Lois Lane, and joins his fellow heroes in their final battle with Steppenwolf.
Simple plot I agree but this is a story about individuals coming together in the name of hope. Each character gives enough that the audience cares about them, even if some of them could have been given a bit more to play with (sounds like sequel material to me!). Wonder Woman effectively becomes the Leader of the team - exorcising her demons in the process (see her solo movie for more) and Gal Gadot is great.
The battle scenes are fantastic - the attack on Themyscira by Steppenwolf being one such example, and complemented by the CGI. Yeah, I've heard the whole 'poor CGI' thing but frankly.... whatever?! Had I not stupidly read the reviews before seeing the film I might not have spent the running time watching the villain and thinking "Is he a poor villain?" (I came away thinking "Nah, he worked for me!")
Henry Cavill didn't get half as much screen time as the other characters in the League and it looks as if most of the Zac Snyder material featuring his Superman ended up on the cutting room floor, but he is one of the highlights. I will agree with the critics that WB seriously messed up with their marketing strategy in which they essentially 'excluded him' from all promotional material. I now eagerly await for Man of Steel 2 where we'll get to see more of the 'fun' Supes that we got in this movie.
I saw this film three times at the cinema and now own on Blu Ray. Fantastic film for the JL's first outing on the big screen. And you know what?
You are allowed to enjoy both the Justice League AND The Avengers!!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Commuter (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Liam Neeson's special set of skills return
The Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars have received over 650 votes so far and it’s proving to be the closest run awards ever. Make sure you cast your vote for the best films and performances from 2017 before March 6th.
Liam Neeson is this generation’s formidable action hero. From protecting his family in Taken and protecting his family in Run All Night, to protecting his family in Taken 2, and you know, protecting his family in Taken 3, Neeson is a family man if ever I’ve seen one.
Teaming up with director Jaume Collet-Serra for the fourth time, the rather excellent Non-Stop being their best work together, Neeson takes the action and moves it on-board, you guessed it, a commuter train. But does The Commuter work? Or are we starting to get derailed by these constant action roles?
Insurance salesman Michael (Neeson) is on his daily commute home, which quickly becomes anything but routine. After being contacted by a mysterious stranger (Vera Farmiga), Michael is forced to uncover the identity of a hidden passenger on the train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, he realizes a deadly plan is unfolding, and he is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for everyone on the train.
The premise is a borderline carbon copy of what we saw in Non-Stop, but with Neeson battling a series of bad guys on a train instead of in the air, and while it is at times, ridiculous, it’s directed with the usual Collet-Serra sense of style that would make even a dog food commercial look intriguing.
Where last year’s Murder on the Orient Express opted for opulence and fairly static camerawork, here The Commuter utilises every part of the train to its advantage. From underneath the carriages, to through the windows and even cleverly framed through a ticket stub, Collet-Serra’s direction is unique, if a little over-stylised at times.
Casting wise, Neeson is the perfect choice to play the world-weary protagonist with a very special set of skills, after all, it’s a role he has been playing for many years now. Some might say typecast, I prefer to think of it as knowing what he wants. Elsewhere, Vera Farmiga is a disappointingly underused presence and it would have been nice to see her a little more throughout the fairly taut 105-minute running time. It’s also nice to see Sam Neill back on the big screen and he remains dependable company.
It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG
The action is choreographed well considering the limitations of the set and while it’s clear that the carriages have been manipulated during some of the fight scenes, it’s still impressive to think of all the camera equipment being squeezed into a fairly small space. There’s always been something oddly satisfying at seeing 65-year-old Neeson taking down a group of ruffians half his age and that shows no sign of dissipating any time soon.
Unfortunately, it appears that the limitations of the set also manifested themselves in limits to the script. There are numerous scenes of Neeson pacing up and down the carriages with very little dialogue and while this worked reasonably well in Non-Stop, the result is less successful here, probably due to a less engaging supporting cast.
And while the cinematography is very clever indeed, the low budget, less than $20million in fact, means some of the CGI and special effects leave a lot to be desired, especially towards the film’s climax. It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG.
Overall, The Commuter is another thrilling slice of popcorn entertainment from Jaume Collet-Serra and Liam Neeson. At 65-years-old, you’d think everyone’s favourite Irish actor would want to be settling down into cosier rom-com territory and who could blame him? I’m just thankful he’s not. The Commuter may be utterly preposterous and completely unoriginal, but you’ll have a blast watching it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/20/the-commuter-review-liam-neesons-special-set-of-skills-return/
Liam Neeson is this generation’s formidable action hero. From protecting his family in Taken and protecting his family in Run All Night, to protecting his family in Taken 2, and you know, protecting his family in Taken 3, Neeson is a family man if ever I’ve seen one.
Teaming up with director Jaume Collet-Serra for the fourth time, the rather excellent Non-Stop being their best work together, Neeson takes the action and moves it on-board, you guessed it, a commuter train. But does The Commuter work? Or are we starting to get derailed by these constant action roles?
Insurance salesman Michael (Neeson) is on his daily commute home, which quickly becomes anything but routine. After being contacted by a mysterious stranger (Vera Farmiga), Michael is forced to uncover the identity of a hidden passenger on the train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, he realizes a deadly plan is unfolding, and he is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for everyone on the train.
The premise is a borderline carbon copy of what we saw in Non-Stop, but with Neeson battling a series of bad guys on a train instead of in the air, and while it is at times, ridiculous, it’s directed with the usual Collet-Serra sense of style that would make even a dog food commercial look intriguing.
Where last year’s Murder on the Orient Express opted for opulence and fairly static camerawork, here The Commuter utilises every part of the train to its advantage. From underneath the carriages, to through the windows and even cleverly framed through a ticket stub, Collet-Serra’s direction is unique, if a little over-stylised at times.
Casting wise, Neeson is the perfect choice to play the world-weary protagonist with a very special set of skills, after all, it’s a role he has been playing for many years now. Some might say typecast, I prefer to think of it as knowing what he wants. Elsewhere, Vera Farmiga is a disappointingly underused presence and it would have been nice to see her a little more throughout the fairly taut 105-minute running time. It’s also nice to see Sam Neill back on the big screen and he remains dependable company.
It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG
The action is choreographed well considering the limitations of the set and while it’s clear that the carriages have been manipulated during some of the fight scenes, it’s still impressive to think of all the camera equipment being squeezed into a fairly small space. There’s always been something oddly satisfying at seeing 65-year-old Neeson taking down a group of ruffians half his age and that shows no sign of dissipating any time soon.
Unfortunately, it appears that the limitations of the set also manifested themselves in limits to the script. There are numerous scenes of Neeson pacing up and down the carriages with very little dialogue and while this worked reasonably well in Non-Stop, the result is less successful here, probably due to a less engaging supporting cast.
And while the cinematography is very clever indeed, the low budget, less than $20million in fact, means some of the CGI and special effects leave a lot to be desired, especially towards the film’s climax. It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG.
Overall, The Commuter is another thrilling slice of popcorn entertainment from Jaume Collet-Serra and Liam Neeson. At 65-years-old, you’d think everyone’s favourite Irish actor would want to be settling down into cosier rom-com territory and who could blame him? I’m just thankful he’s not. The Commuter may be utterly preposterous and completely unoriginal, but you’ll have a blast watching it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/20/the-commuter-review-liam-neesons-special-set-of-skills-return/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated 13 Minutes in Books
Feb 13, 2018
When they pull Natasha out of the river, she's been dead for thirteen minutes. Thirteen dark, cold minutes. It's amazing the teenager even lives; in fact, it's just pure luck that a man and his dog stumble upon her and pull her from the river's icy clutches. Tasha, as she's known, has no memory of how she wound up in the river, but she knows it wasn't intentional on her part. In fact, she's pretty sure two of her closest friends, Hayley and Jenny, had something to do with it. The two seemed weird in the days leading up to the incident. The trio of beautiful, popular girls--known as "the Barbies" at school--were supposedly the best of friends. But after the accident, Tasha feels drawn to her former friend, Becca, whom she dropped in middle school. Becca isn't sure why Tasha is suddenly being so nice to her. Tasha isn't sure either. And no one is exactly sure how or why Tasha ended up in that river.
I've never read a novel by [a:Sarah Pinborough|457300|Sarah Pinborough|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1463056151p2/457300.jpg] before, and I was pretty impressed. She's a great writer, and <i>she certainly knows how to capture the voice of the teenagers within the pages of her novel</i>. I don't think I realized this book would be quite so YA, if that makes any sense. I <i>kept waiting for there to be a bit more to the story than teenage politics</i>, but it's truly sort of a <i>Pretty Little Liars</i>-type tale. That's not to say it's not well-done. It may have just been a tad bit young for me; still, <i>it's an excellent novel and would be a truly wonderful read for most teens</i>, too.
Part of the novel's brilliance comes in its format. It's told from the point of view of Becca and Tasha, but we also get excerpts from Tasha's diary; case files from the Inspector on Tasha's case; notes from Tasha's psychologist; texts between the teens; and more. <i>I enjoyed the format, and it was quite effective at building suspense and tension. </i>
Because,<i> wow, yes, the book is certainly tense and compelling.</i> You're constantly wondering how reliable our teenage narrators are and questioning everything that happens. Now, as mentioned, there's a lot of teenage drama. A LOT. <i>These teens are truly a little scary</i>, and this was yet another book that makes me a tiny bit frightened for my five-year-old daughters to grow up. My goodness. At times, I got a bit bogged down in all the teen antics, but it was still quite interesting.
Becca was definitely a bit of a kid, but I still liked her (for the most part). She was well-written, just a little young for me. Pinborough is truly amazing at getting in the head of these teenagers--capturing the pettiness, meanness, and honestly, sometimes the dumbness, of their mindset. But she also caught the brutal neediness behind some of their actions: that raw need of kids that age to fit in with their peers.
I had a decent idea how this one was going to play out pretty early on, but that didn't stop me from reading (as mentioned, I tore through this in about 24 hours). There's something oddly compelling about this book and its characters. Pinborough weaves in <i>The Crucible</i> as a backdrop--it's the school play--which is a really clever move, as there are a lot of parallels between said drama and the melodrama unfolding among Tasha, Hayley, and Jenny.
Overall, this novel really just hinges on the duality of the hatefulness and vulnerability of teenagers. It may come across as a little too YA and predictable for some adults, but I can't deny that it's well-written and crisp. It's hard to like some of the characters, but I think it would make a great book for teens (albeit it's rather freaking scary). I was leaning toward 3.5 stars before writing this review, but I think I'll do 3.75 and bump up to 4 stars here on Goodreads (that's not complicated at all, right? Perhaps fitting for this complicated and twisty novel).
I received a copy of this novel from Netgalley and the publisher (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 10/03/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
I've never read a novel by [a:Sarah Pinborough|457300|Sarah Pinborough|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1463056151p2/457300.jpg] before, and I was pretty impressed. She's a great writer, and <i>she certainly knows how to capture the voice of the teenagers within the pages of her novel</i>. I don't think I realized this book would be quite so YA, if that makes any sense. I <i>kept waiting for there to be a bit more to the story than teenage politics</i>, but it's truly sort of a <i>Pretty Little Liars</i>-type tale. That's not to say it's not well-done. It may have just been a tad bit young for me; still, <i>it's an excellent novel and would be a truly wonderful read for most teens</i>, too.
Part of the novel's brilliance comes in its format. It's told from the point of view of Becca and Tasha, but we also get excerpts from Tasha's diary; case files from the Inspector on Tasha's case; notes from Tasha's psychologist; texts between the teens; and more. <i>I enjoyed the format, and it was quite effective at building suspense and tension. </i>
Because,<i> wow, yes, the book is certainly tense and compelling.</i> You're constantly wondering how reliable our teenage narrators are and questioning everything that happens. Now, as mentioned, there's a lot of teenage drama. A LOT. <i>These teens are truly a little scary</i>, and this was yet another book that makes me a tiny bit frightened for my five-year-old daughters to grow up. My goodness. At times, I got a bit bogged down in all the teen antics, but it was still quite interesting.
Becca was definitely a bit of a kid, but I still liked her (for the most part). She was well-written, just a little young for me. Pinborough is truly amazing at getting in the head of these teenagers--capturing the pettiness, meanness, and honestly, sometimes the dumbness, of their mindset. But she also caught the brutal neediness behind some of their actions: that raw need of kids that age to fit in with their peers.
I had a decent idea how this one was going to play out pretty early on, but that didn't stop me from reading (as mentioned, I tore through this in about 24 hours). There's something oddly compelling about this book and its characters. Pinborough weaves in <i>The Crucible</i> as a backdrop--it's the school play--which is a really clever move, as there are a lot of parallels between said drama and the melodrama unfolding among Tasha, Hayley, and Jenny.
Overall, this novel really just hinges on the duality of the hatefulness and vulnerability of teenagers. It may come across as a little too YA and predictable for some adults, but I can't deny that it's well-written and crisp. It's hard to like some of the characters, but I think it would make a great book for teens (albeit it's rather freaking scary). I was leaning toward 3.5 stars before writing this review, but I think I'll do 3.75 and bump up to 4 stars here on Goodreads (that's not complicated at all, right? Perhaps fitting for this complicated and twisty novel).
I received a copy of this novel from Netgalley and the publisher (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 10/03/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
Louise (64 KP) rated The School For Good and Evil in Books
Jul 2, 2018
After bingeing the Harry Potter series I wasn't ready to let go of the fantasy world, I needed more wizards,witches and fantastical beasts. I saw Regan@peruseproject haul and talk about this book and the premise had me hooked.
It's starts off with two girls from the little village of Gavaldon, Every four years for the past 200 years 2 children are kidnapped by the 'Master'. One good and one bad child, it can be two girls,two boys or one of each are taken from their homes forever and believed to be sent to a school for fairy tales.
There is one child, Sophie who has lived for this moment, she is determined to become a princess and meet her Prince Charming and leave the dreary village for good. Sophie is beautiful,the most beautiful girl in Gavaldon and strives for perfection for she knows her time has come and to make sure she is picked she makes sure she carries out good deeds on a daily basis like befriending Agatha.
Agatha is the complete opposite from Sophie, she is not beautiful, she wears black frumpy clothes and keeps to herself. The night the 'Master' comes, children are locked up whereas Sophie encourages it by opening her window and leaving cookies. Agatha tries to rescue Sophie from the Master but just ends up being caught as well, hoping that they will be able to find their way home again.
All is not as planned, when Sophie is dropped into a river of Sludge she finds she has been put in the wrong school and there must have been a mix up of some sort as Agatha has been put in the good school. Sophie is to train to become a witch, henchman or some horrendous creature. With lessons on uglification and surviving Fairy-tales, she instantly seeks out the Headmaster to explain the mishap. Agatha is also out of her comfort zone with glamorous girls in pink dresses with only boys and manicure's on their minds, she wants to return home to Gavaldon as soon as possible but first she has to persuade Sophie. The master has other plans, will Sophie eventually get to the good side? will Agatha get to home?
The two castles are amazing, in the front of the book you get a map to view the two sides of the school. The good side, you have glass rooms,rooms made out of candy, groom rooms, everything possible to make you a princess. On the evil side, you have dungeons and torture chambers which smell of damp. The teachers in the school are composed of a two-headed dog that can remove their heads and attach to other bodies, there are werewolves, fairies, gargoyles,witches and princesses.
Sophie believes that she has been put into the wrong school however as you she develops throughout the book there are sides to her that are not always good. She was angry that she was put in the wrong school,I mean she has dreamed about this her whole life and will do anything to get there.
Agatha is an outcast in the school of good because she doesn't conform to wearing pink dresses and swooning whenever a boy is in the vicinity. However she is a really caring character and doesn't believe that she could ever be beautiful and nor do the others in the good school.
Then there is the love interest - of course there was going to be one! His name is Tedros and he is the most handsome boy in the school of good and not to forget King Arthur's son. He instantly gets all the girls attention, even Sophie's from the other side of the school.
I only had some minor problems with the book, I felt that the author was trying to describe too much at once and it became quite confusing to keep up with. The vanity in this book was overwhelming it set a clear line between ugly and beautiful. This is a middle grade book - impressionable teenagers are going to be reading this. You don't need to be beautiful on the outside the be a princess... it's what on the inside that counts.
This book was fast paced, easy to read (at points) and definitely worth a read if you love fairy tales.
Overall I rated this 3.5 out of 5 stars
It's starts off with two girls from the little village of Gavaldon, Every four years for the past 200 years 2 children are kidnapped by the 'Master'. One good and one bad child, it can be two girls,two boys or one of each are taken from their homes forever and believed to be sent to a school for fairy tales.
There is one child, Sophie who has lived for this moment, she is determined to become a princess and meet her Prince Charming and leave the dreary village for good. Sophie is beautiful,the most beautiful girl in Gavaldon and strives for perfection for she knows her time has come and to make sure she is picked she makes sure she carries out good deeds on a daily basis like befriending Agatha.
Agatha is the complete opposite from Sophie, she is not beautiful, she wears black frumpy clothes and keeps to herself. The night the 'Master' comes, children are locked up whereas Sophie encourages it by opening her window and leaving cookies. Agatha tries to rescue Sophie from the Master but just ends up being caught as well, hoping that they will be able to find their way home again.
All is not as planned, when Sophie is dropped into a river of Sludge she finds she has been put in the wrong school and there must have been a mix up of some sort as Agatha has been put in the good school. Sophie is to train to become a witch, henchman or some horrendous creature. With lessons on uglification and surviving Fairy-tales, she instantly seeks out the Headmaster to explain the mishap. Agatha is also out of her comfort zone with glamorous girls in pink dresses with only boys and manicure's on their minds, she wants to return home to Gavaldon as soon as possible but first she has to persuade Sophie. The master has other plans, will Sophie eventually get to the good side? will Agatha get to home?
The two castles are amazing, in the front of the book you get a map to view the two sides of the school. The good side, you have glass rooms,rooms made out of candy, groom rooms, everything possible to make you a princess. On the evil side, you have dungeons and torture chambers which smell of damp. The teachers in the school are composed of a two-headed dog that can remove their heads and attach to other bodies, there are werewolves, fairies, gargoyles,witches and princesses.
Sophie believes that she has been put into the wrong school however as you she develops throughout the book there are sides to her that are not always good. She was angry that she was put in the wrong school,I mean she has dreamed about this her whole life and will do anything to get there.
Agatha is an outcast in the school of good because she doesn't conform to wearing pink dresses and swooning whenever a boy is in the vicinity. However she is a really caring character and doesn't believe that she could ever be beautiful and nor do the others in the good school.
Then there is the love interest - of course there was going to be one! His name is Tedros and he is the most handsome boy in the school of good and not to forget King Arthur's son. He instantly gets all the girls attention, even Sophie's from the other side of the school.
I only had some minor problems with the book, I felt that the author was trying to describe too much at once and it became quite confusing to keep up with. The vanity in this book was overwhelming it set a clear line between ugly and beautiful. This is a middle grade book - impressionable teenagers are going to be reading this. You don't need to be beautiful on the outside the be a princess... it's what on the inside that counts.
This book was fast paced, easy to read (at points) and definitely worth a read if you love fairy tales.
Overall I rated this 3.5 out of 5 stars
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Up (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Carl Fredricksen is a balloon salesman who has always wanted to have that one big adventure ever since he was a little boy. As a boy, he idolized the then famous explorer, Charles Muntz. He's now 78-years-old and the odds are against him in having that adventure this late in his life until one fateful day. When Carl is left with no other option than to leave his home, he ties thousands of balloons to his house and literally floats away. He heads to South America just like a certain special someone who used to be in Carl's life would've wanted it. A wilderness explorer named Russell who's looking to get his "helping the elderly" badge is accidentally brought along on Carl's adventure. Carl soon figures out that even though keeping his word and going on an adventure he promised to take (crossed his heart) is something to be proud of, that particular adventure will eventually end and he'll have to rummage out on his own.
Pixar always seems to release one of the best films each and every year. This year is no exception. Up is able to take its audience through so many ups and downs throughout its running time. It makes your heart heavy in the first ten to fifteen minutes before the actual story begins, then the rest of the film seems to juggle its audience between humor, excitement, and being genuinely heartfelt. Pixar films seem to have this ability to accomplish more than other films. The writing is always extremely solid and the film is always built around an incredibly creative idea. It's like a Pixar film holds your emotions in the palm of its hand. Every emotion you have is a labeled button on the remote in this imaginary hand and Pixar can access these emotions at the simple push of a button. In fact, Pixar is at its strongest when there is no dialogue at all. The first half of WALL-E is a perfect example, but the short shown before Up (Partly Cloudy) is another great example. There's no dialogue at all, but my eyes were welling up before it was all said and done. When the credits roll to a Pixar film, a sense of fulfillment washes over its viewers. They're left with that warm fuzzy feeling that many films only dream of leaving their audience with.
There's nothing else that can really be said about the animation in this film that people aren't already expecting. It's top notch as the animation is fluid, character features (such as hair) look realistic (Carl grows a five o'clock shadow by the time the third day in Paradise Falls rolls around), and everything is just so colorful and vibrant. While knowing full well it's an animated feature, characters seem to jump off the screen and scenery looks like what would be found in actual wildlife. The 3-D was a nice touch, but isn't necessary to enjoying the film to its full extent. Although seeing 3-D animated characters in a 3-D world in actual 3-D really seemed to fit like a glove.
Each character is given just the right amount of screen time in the film to make its audience really care about them. Russell has this whole back story as to why he wants his "helping the elderly" badge, "Kevin" (the giant, colorful snipe) really just squawks and makes weird noises but is actually just trying to get home to serve its real purpose, and Dug (the dog with the collar that enables it to talk) is the outcast of his pack but pretty much steals whatever scene he is in. The whole story is built around Carl, so caring about him is pretty much a given after that heartbreaking opening that was mentioned earlier. The whole film is filled with oddball characters that all have their own quirks and gags (SQUIRREL!) that you really want nothing more than to see more of each and every one of them.
Up is one of the year's best films and will more than likely be on most best of lists by the time this year comes to a close. It is a family film, but it generally has something to offer for everybody. It is definitely the type of film to see to put anyone in a better mood and put a smile on your face. Up is a whimsical and heartwarming animated feature that's incredibly fun for anyone.
Pixar always seems to release one of the best films each and every year. This year is no exception. Up is able to take its audience through so many ups and downs throughout its running time. It makes your heart heavy in the first ten to fifteen minutes before the actual story begins, then the rest of the film seems to juggle its audience between humor, excitement, and being genuinely heartfelt. Pixar films seem to have this ability to accomplish more than other films. The writing is always extremely solid and the film is always built around an incredibly creative idea. It's like a Pixar film holds your emotions in the palm of its hand. Every emotion you have is a labeled button on the remote in this imaginary hand and Pixar can access these emotions at the simple push of a button. In fact, Pixar is at its strongest when there is no dialogue at all. The first half of WALL-E is a perfect example, but the short shown before Up (Partly Cloudy) is another great example. There's no dialogue at all, but my eyes were welling up before it was all said and done. When the credits roll to a Pixar film, a sense of fulfillment washes over its viewers. They're left with that warm fuzzy feeling that many films only dream of leaving their audience with.
There's nothing else that can really be said about the animation in this film that people aren't already expecting. It's top notch as the animation is fluid, character features (such as hair) look realistic (Carl grows a five o'clock shadow by the time the third day in Paradise Falls rolls around), and everything is just so colorful and vibrant. While knowing full well it's an animated feature, characters seem to jump off the screen and scenery looks like what would be found in actual wildlife. The 3-D was a nice touch, but isn't necessary to enjoying the film to its full extent. Although seeing 3-D animated characters in a 3-D world in actual 3-D really seemed to fit like a glove.
Each character is given just the right amount of screen time in the film to make its audience really care about them. Russell has this whole back story as to why he wants his "helping the elderly" badge, "Kevin" (the giant, colorful snipe) really just squawks and makes weird noises but is actually just trying to get home to serve its real purpose, and Dug (the dog with the collar that enables it to talk) is the outcast of his pack but pretty much steals whatever scene he is in. The whole story is built around Carl, so caring about him is pretty much a given after that heartbreaking opening that was mentioned earlier. The whole film is filled with oddball characters that all have their own quirks and gags (SQUIRREL!) that you really want nothing more than to see more of each and every one of them.
Up is one of the year's best films and will more than likely be on most best of lists by the time this year comes to a close. It is a family film, but it generally has something to offer for everybody. It is definitely the type of film to see to put anyone in a better mood and put a smile on your face. Up is a whimsical and heartwarming animated feature that's incredibly fun for anyone.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Under the Silver Lake (2018) in Movies
Jul 6, 2019
In David Robert Mitchell’s (It Follows) Under the Silver Lake, Andrew Garfield portrays a jobless and lethargic young man named Sam. Apart from his obsession with conspiracy theories and finding obscure messages in common pop culture, Sam typically spies on his topless and bird-loving neighbor. He also blatantly ignores the fact that he’s facing eviction in five days for unpaid rent. His current infatuation is a zine entitled Under the Silver Lake, which seems to mirror what’s currently transpiring in Los Angeles. Sam develops a crush on his new neighbor named Sarah (Riley Keough), who seems to disappear without a trace overnight. What begins as an investigation into Sarah’s current whereabouts evolves into something deeply rooted in the peculiar.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Jan 20, 2020
An endurance test but a great endurance test
Martin Scorsese made a lot of enemies recently with his rant against the superficiality of the Marvel movies. But you can hardly argue that his latest film is superficial. We see the mobster Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) in his old people's home wistfully recalling his past life. Through flashback we go back to times as early as his service in World War II, where he learned to kill other men without a second thought.
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Aeronauts (2019) in Movies
Mar 19, 2020
As my cinema bookings started to be cancelled, and upcoming releases delayed as part of the chaos that's currently unfolding globally, I thought it was time to start tackling some of those streaming site watch-lists that have been slowly growing in size over recent years. First up, a movie that I managed to miss late last year when released in cinemas, and is now available to stream on Amazon Prime.
The Aeronauts is set in the 1860s and sees Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, last seen together playing husband and wife in The Theory of Everything, reuniting for a story that is inspired by true events. Redmayne plays James Glaisher, a scientist studying and presenting theories surrounding weather prediction, in particular how a trip to the skies in a gas balloon could help us to understand more about it. It's a science very much in it's infancy, which is why Glaisher has become such a laughing stock among his peers within the science community, all of whom declare meteorology to be fortune telling rather than science. Felicity Jones plays the fictional character of Amelia Wren, an aeronaut who lost her husband in a balloon accident and has been convinced by Glaisher to return to the skies and join him as pilot onboard the balloon as they explore some of his theories.
The movie begins with a large crowd who have gathered in London to watch the departure of the Glaisher and Wren. Glaisher is making some last minute checks and adjustments to the numerous pieces of equipment that will provide all of the data and readings he needs while they ascend up into the clouds, while Wren is currently nowhere to be seen. When she does eventually arrive, she's brash and loud, making a big entrance and playing up to the crowds, entertaining them with cartwheels and her parachuting dog. “Do you take anything seriously?" Glaisher asks.
As the balloon gently sets off, we get a beautiful view of 1860s London and a simple on-screen graph begins plotting the duration of their journey against their current height, something which returns every so often to keep us nicely updated with their progress. Before this expedition, the greatest altitude ever reached by a human being was 23,000ft, a record achieved by a French team. So, in addition to gaining some valuable scientific data along the way, there is the added incentive to try and beat the French too!
The whole expedition is followed pretty much in real time, but broken up by a series of flashbacks which give us some additional insight into our main characters and what brought them together. A look at the balloon trip which resulted in the death of her husband shows us just how seriously Amelia takes her role on this particular adventure. Meanwhile, we get more of a glimpse into the ridicule Glaisher received from his scientific colleagues, and an introduction to his dementia suffering father (Tom Courtenay).
As beautiful and exhilarating as it is to see the balloon as it continues up through the clouds and storms, floating peacefully through blue skies and swarms of butterflies, it wouldn't be much of a movie without some additional drama and tension to spice things up. So, as Glaisher and Wren argue about whether to push on way beyond the 23,000ft record or begin their descent, the temperature drops down to five degrees, and snow and ice begin to form on the balloon and basket. The thinning oxygen and cold temperatures starts to affect their judgement, their equipment and their health, and would you believe it, neither of them thought to bring along their gloves either!
When the pigeons they've brought along for sending instrument readings back down to base either start to die, or drop like rocks when launched from the balloon basket, it's clear that it's time to start heading back down. But, a problem with the balloon means that Wren must venture outside the basket and up on top of the balloon itself, in some of the most vertigo inducing scenes I've seen since watching The Walk on the big screen.
The Aeronauts was a lot more enjoyable than I was expecting. It's two stars, as you'd expect, more than capably carry the story and are both hugely entertaining. The effects used for rendering the balloon and it's surroundings, particularly during adverse weather conditions, are very effective and at times had me on the edge of my seat too.
The Aeronauts is set in the 1860s and sees Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, last seen together playing husband and wife in The Theory of Everything, reuniting for a story that is inspired by true events. Redmayne plays James Glaisher, a scientist studying and presenting theories surrounding weather prediction, in particular how a trip to the skies in a gas balloon could help us to understand more about it. It's a science very much in it's infancy, which is why Glaisher has become such a laughing stock among his peers within the science community, all of whom declare meteorology to be fortune telling rather than science. Felicity Jones plays the fictional character of Amelia Wren, an aeronaut who lost her husband in a balloon accident and has been convinced by Glaisher to return to the skies and join him as pilot onboard the balloon as they explore some of his theories.
The movie begins with a large crowd who have gathered in London to watch the departure of the Glaisher and Wren. Glaisher is making some last minute checks and adjustments to the numerous pieces of equipment that will provide all of the data and readings he needs while they ascend up into the clouds, while Wren is currently nowhere to be seen. When she does eventually arrive, she's brash and loud, making a big entrance and playing up to the crowds, entertaining them with cartwheels and her parachuting dog. “Do you take anything seriously?" Glaisher asks.
As the balloon gently sets off, we get a beautiful view of 1860s London and a simple on-screen graph begins plotting the duration of their journey against their current height, something which returns every so often to keep us nicely updated with their progress. Before this expedition, the greatest altitude ever reached by a human being was 23,000ft, a record achieved by a French team. So, in addition to gaining some valuable scientific data along the way, there is the added incentive to try and beat the French too!
The whole expedition is followed pretty much in real time, but broken up by a series of flashbacks which give us some additional insight into our main characters and what brought them together. A look at the balloon trip which resulted in the death of her husband shows us just how seriously Amelia takes her role on this particular adventure. Meanwhile, we get more of a glimpse into the ridicule Glaisher received from his scientific colleagues, and an introduction to his dementia suffering father (Tom Courtenay).
As beautiful and exhilarating as it is to see the balloon as it continues up through the clouds and storms, floating peacefully through blue skies and swarms of butterflies, it wouldn't be much of a movie without some additional drama and tension to spice things up. So, as Glaisher and Wren argue about whether to push on way beyond the 23,000ft record or begin their descent, the temperature drops down to five degrees, and snow and ice begin to form on the balloon and basket. The thinning oxygen and cold temperatures starts to affect their judgement, their equipment and their health, and would you believe it, neither of them thought to bring along their gloves either!
When the pigeons they've brought along for sending instrument readings back down to base either start to die, or drop like rocks when launched from the balloon basket, it's clear that it's time to start heading back down. But, a problem with the balloon means that Wren must venture outside the basket and up on top of the balloon itself, in some of the most vertigo inducing scenes I've seen since watching The Walk on the big screen.
The Aeronauts was a lot more enjoyable than I was expecting. It's two stars, as you'd expect, more than capably carry the story and are both hugely entertaining. The effects used for rendering the balloon and it's surroundings, particularly during adverse weather conditions, are very effective and at times had me on the edge of my seat too.
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) rated The Stand in TV
Feb 10, 2021
I've never written a full review before as I let my score tell the story for the film/TV show in my view and don't like to influence people by what I write, simply put watch it and make your own judgement but with this steaming pile of crap I've had to do this just to get the anger and loathing off my chest.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Widows (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Before I'd even seen anything beyond the plot and a poster I was confused. It really just felt like the poster was designed to catch people. "Look, we've got these big names! Come and watch it!" I know that's what posters are meant to do, but considering the movie is about these women taking up the reins of their dearly departed I'd have had more respect for a poster that focused on them.
Widows has every chance to be great. Based on Lynda La Plante's Widows, with the screenplay written by Gillian Flynn and Steve McQueen, as well as being directed by the latter. Those three names should guarantee a success, and while it seems to be very popular among viewers it has left me some what cold.
The idea is a solid one that you would expect from La Plante's repertoire, and it's worked before. Unfortunately that could not bring it back from the brink for me.
I can't think of another film that has given me such an instant feeling of dislike. The opening scene made me cringe, and having it quickly change pace into a violently loud action scene and back again was jarring to watch.
The first inkling that something is awry comes fairly early on and even without much more you can see where the plot is going. I'm impressed that the trailers managed to stay away from anything obvious.
We have an interesting assortment of baddies and there are two perfectly contrasting ones in Jamal (Brian Tyree Henry) and Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya) Manning. The former is charismatic and subtly scary, whereas the latter has no likable qualities (apart from a clear love of reading) and is extremely vicious. The other difference is that Jamal in enjoyable to watch and Jatemme isn't. Usually even the most loathed of villains is good to watch on screen, not in this case. Jamal comes out on top in the villain stakes even with the dog incident.
Normally I wouldn't think much beyond what you're presented with in each scene of the movie, but I quickly found myself wondering about a lot of things. Linda's interaction with Delia's husband was strange and one of many things that felt unnecessary. And while I'll happily believe that women could successfully execute a heist, I'm not really sure I can believe that THESE women could do it, I don't care how well documented his notebook was.
Something that seems to a popular device in this is "the flashback". At the beginning it lays up the backstory of the two crews quickly and gives you a good sense of the people, even though I feel the way it was executed on screen wasn't so hot. When the film starts to round up and these scenes give you the missing story at just the right point. The one's I didn't like were between Veronica and Harry. Not all of them were flashbacks, some were Veronica dealing with Harry's death. They seemed more on the dramatic side and didn't feel in-keeping with the rest of the film. (I will say that this film is listed on IMDb as "crime, drama, romance"... Romance seems like a bit of a stretch, and crime and drama as two separate things are very different to a "crime drama". I'll admit that it's a very slight difference, but I think it's still there.)
I'm not sure how the characters worked in the book, but I would assume that some liberties had to be taken to change the setting, and obviously when you're turning a book into a film then you're going to have to tie up some loopholes with jiggery-pokery. What was left were some characters with potential that never seemed to be filled and others that were so throwaway I had already forgotten about them when I read through the cast list after I'd seen it.
What you should do
I'd wait until this one is streaming. It doesn't require a big screen and I always think films like this are better if you can talk to the screen while you're watching them. "Why are you doing that?!" "Yeah, let's see how far that gets you!" and the like. It's got enough reasonable moments to watch it at least once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Obviously the giant piles of money are always appealing, but I'm very tempted to go for Linda's store. I'd love to work all day in a shop selling fantastical dresses and tiaras watching people's faces light up when they found the right one. It's like the Disney Princess dream come to life!
Widows has every chance to be great. Based on Lynda La Plante's Widows, with the screenplay written by Gillian Flynn and Steve McQueen, as well as being directed by the latter. Those three names should guarantee a success, and while it seems to be very popular among viewers it has left me some what cold.
The idea is a solid one that you would expect from La Plante's repertoire, and it's worked before. Unfortunately that could not bring it back from the brink for me.
I can't think of another film that has given me such an instant feeling of dislike. The opening scene made me cringe, and having it quickly change pace into a violently loud action scene and back again was jarring to watch.
The first inkling that something is awry comes fairly early on and even without much more you can see where the plot is going. I'm impressed that the trailers managed to stay away from anything obvious.
We have an interesting assortment of baddies and there are two perfectly contrasting ones in Jamal (Brian Tyree Henry) and Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya) Manning. The former is charismatic and subtly scary, whereas the latter has no likable qualities (apart from a clear love of reading) and is extremely vicious. The other difference is that Jamal in enjoyable to watch and Jatemme isn't. Usually even the most loathed of villains is good to watch on screen, not in this case. Jamal comes out on top in the villain stakes even with the dog incident.
Normally I wouldn't think much beyond what you're presented with in each scene of the movie, but I quickly found myself wondering about a lot of things. Linda's interaction with Delia's husband was strange and one of many things that felt unnecessary. And while I'll happily believe that women could successfully execute a heist, I'm not really sure I can believe that THESE women could do it, I don't care how well documented his notebook was.
Something that seems to a popular device in this is "the flashback". At the beginning it lays up the backstory of the two crews quickly and gives you a good sense of the people, even though I feel the way it was executed on screen wasn't so hot. When the film starts to round up and these scenes give you the missing story at just the right point. The one's I didn't like were between Veronica and Harry. Not all of them were flashbacks, some were Veronica dealing with Harry's death. They seemed more on the dramatic side and didn't feel in-keeping with the rest of the film. (I will say that this film is listed on IMDb as "crime, drama, romance"... Romance seems like a bit of a stretch, and crime and drama as two separate things are very different to a "crime drama". I'll admit that it's a very slight difference, but I think it's still there.)
I'm not sure how the characters worked in the book, but I would assume that some liberties had to be taken to change the setting, and obviously when you're turning a book into a film then you're going to have to tie up some loopholes with jiggery-pokery. What was left were some characters with potential that never seemed to be filled and others that were so throwaway I had already forgotten about them when I read through the cast list after I'd seen it.
What you should do
I'd wait until this one is streaming. It doesn't require a big screen and I always think films like this are better if you can talk to the screen while you're watching them. "Why are you doing that?!" "Yeah, let's see how far that gets you!" and the like. It's got enough reasonable moments to watch it at least once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Obviously the giant piles of money are always appealing, but I'm very tempted to go for Linda's store. I'd love to work all day in a shop selling fantastical dresses and tiaras watching people's faces light up when they found the right one. It's like the Disney Princess dream come to life!