Search
Search results
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Rocketman (2019) in Movies
May 29, 2019
I knew before watching this that it wasn’t your average biopic but that still didn’t prepare me for how truly wacky and wonderful it was. But then when you think of Elton John, would you really expect anything less flamboyant?
This is more like an Elton John musical complete with rather strange fantasy elements, and I have to admit that the fantasy is mostly the bit I didn’t like. Singing with younger versions of himself were fine, but the rest I just found a little too odd and ill fitting. However despite this, it’s still a rather good musical. All of the songs that you’d expect are in here and it was a struggle not to sing along. I do think that the general sound on the music in this didn’t seem quite as good as Bohemian Rhapsody, it didn’t feel quite as immersive and concert like and it was in the same screen!
Taron Egerton does a wonderful job, I’ve said before that he’s a marvellous actor and he proves it yet again here. Whilst he doesn’t look exactly like Elton John i can’t imagine anyone else playing this role and there were some moments later on in the film that I had to do a double take as he looked so like him! There are other great performances too, namely Richard Madden as the smarmy John Reid and Jamie Bell as Bernie Taupin. There are some scenes with Bernie and Elton that almost have me in tears. I know fairly little about Elton’s earlier life so for me this was rather an informative and fascinating film too, and I was beyond glad at the end to hear that Bernie is still going. I couldn’t have coped if he wasn’t!
This film isn’t faultless and I felt like it was rather drawn out, but it’s still a rather good musical biopic and definitely one I’d like to see again and sing along too. Indeed, wouldn’t this be marvellous as a musical stage show?
This is more like an Elton John musical complete with rather strange fantasy elements, and I have to admit that the fantasy is mostly the bit I didn’t like. Singing with younger versions of himself were fine, but the rest I just found a little too odd and ill fitting. However despite this, it’s still a rather good musical. All of the songs that you’d expect are in here and it was a struggle not to sing along. I do think that the general sound on the music in this didn’t seem quite as good as Bohemian Rhapsody, it didn’t feel quite as immersive and concert like and it was in the same screen!
Taron Egerton does a wonderful job, I’ve said before that he’s a marvellous actor and he proves it yet again here. Whilst he doesn’t look exactly like Elton John i can’t imagine anyone else playing this role and there were some moments later on in the film that I had to do a double take as he looked so like him! There are other great performances too, namely Richard Madden as the smarmy John Reid and Jamie Bell as Bernie Taupin. There are some scenes with Bernie and Elton that almost have me in tears. I know fairly little about Elton’s earlier life so for me this was rather an informative and fascinating film too, and I was beyond glad at the end to hear that Bernie is still going. I couldn’t have coped if he wasn’t!
This film isn’t faultless and I felt like it was rather drawn out, but it’s still a rather good musical biopic and definitely one I’d like to see again and sing along too. Indeed, wouldn’t this be marvellous as a musical stage show?
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Descent (2005) in Movies
May 30, 2018
There are some great British films but would this be one of them?
Contains spoilers, click to show
I watched this with my girlfriend Kelly not knowing what to expect. We knew it was a horror, but it was also a British film. There are some great British films but would this be one of them? The film is about a group of women who get together to explore a set of remote caves. During the expedition they encounter strange creatures and end up having to fight for their lives. Staring Shauna Macdonald, Natalie Mendoza, Alex Reid, Saskia Mulder, MyAnna Buring & Nora-Jane No one. All are great in the roles of the six friends, however Natalie Mendoza stands out for me as Juno. There are undertones of something more with her character and her performance is eerie and mysterious. This film is one of the best modern horror films I have seen. While many modern horror films fall under the category of torture porn like Saw and Hostile, this film doesn't rely on gore and gross out moments to shock you. It manages it in traditional ways using subtle camera effects, building tension and good acting. The director is a genius in his ability to scare you. He builds the tension to a point where you feel you will burst. There are no cheesy moments just good old fashioned scares. And what scares they are. There are moments that truly scare and surprise you. This is one of the best horror movies and a very well made film. The intro is just long enough to give you a good background to the friends and then all hell breaks loose! If you like classic horror movies check this one out. Keep the lights on and if you are watching with your girlfriend, watch out for your hands. Kelly was so scared I thought she would break mine when she squeezed it really hard when she jumped!
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated The Satanic Bible in Books
Jun 29, 2018
LaVey echoes a view of man's value and of non-materialist religion which can be easily found in the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche (especially Antichrist) and Ayn Rand. He is incredibly inconsistent on the subject of morality and shows only a cursory understanding of Christian history, doctrines, and the Bible.
LaVey does not view Satan as a person (nor does he view God that way), but as a representation of what man really is in his primal nature-- a violent and lustful nature which LaVey calls good, though he simultaneously argues that certain parts of it (that which would harm children or rape, for instance) are not good-- a dichotomy that he calls hypocritical in righthand path religions such as Christianity. Beyond this tension, he elsewhere seems to argue for moral relativism, creating a vicious circle of nonsense. Because good and evil are falsehoods and God and Satan are non-persons, the spells and rituals he creates are only symbols meant to harness our primal energies, sending them out to accomplish our goals (much like in the Hicks' Law of Attraction books or in The Secret).
A mix of equal parts tongue-in-cheek symbolism and outright charlatanism.
I suspect that this book's teachings would appeal primarily to two types of people: narcissists who want to seem edgy and angry people who have been harmed by institutional religion. In regard to the former, there are more thoughtful ways to be counter-cultural. In regard to the latter, an assessment of the intellectual weaknesses of this philosophy won't remove the hurt or pain they've been through, but hopefully an understanding that the kind of Christianity spoken of by LaVey is not genuine Christianity can remove some of the hatred they feel toward it due to the immoral actions performed by its claimed representatives.
Totally off-topic, but Lavey looks like a bald version of Evil Spock.
LaVey does not view Satan as a person (nor does he view God that way), but as a representation of what man really is in his primal nature-- a violent and lustful nature which LaVey calls good, though he simultaneously argues that certain parts of it (that which would harm children or rape, for instance) are not good-- a dichotomy that he calls hypocritical in righthand path religions such as Christianity. Beyond this tension, he elsewhere seems to argue for moral relativism, creating a vicious circle of nonsense. Because good and evil are falsehoods and God and Satan are non-persons, the spells and rituals he creates are only symbols meant to harness our primal energies, sending them out to accomplish our goals (much like in the Hicks' Law of Attraction books or in The Secret).
A mix of equal parts tongue-in-cheek symbolism and outright charlatanism.
I suspect that this book's teachings would appeal primarily to two types of people: narcissists who want to seem edgy and angry people who have been harmed by institutional religion. In regard to the former, there are more thoughtful ways to be counter-cultural. In regard to the latter, an assessment of the intellectual weaknesses of this philosophy won't remove the hurt or pain they've been through, but hopefully an understanding that the kind of Christianity spoken of by LaVey is not genuine Christianity can remove some of the hatred they feel toward it due to the immoral actions performed by its claimed representatives.
Totally off-topic, but Lavey looks like a bald version of Evil Spock.
Caitlin Ann Cherniak (85 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Oct 4, 2018
CGI (2 more)
Acting choice
Interesting twist to a retelling
Plot? Dragon being real or save the environment? (2 more)
Who's the bad guy?
Where was Pete the whole dang time?
Letterboxd review: https://letterboxd.com/caitcher/film/petes-dragon-2016/
First impressions video:
When I first saw this movie two years ago, I thought it was okay at best. There were plenty of good things about it, but there are the downsides that kinda take over.
The first thing I noticed was the plot. I haven't seen the original movie, but considering this was Disney in the 70's, it looked charming as Disney should. But because this is a live-action retelling, we can't have that luxury. I didn't ask for Pete's Dragon to do much. I just asked for it to be a good movie. However, throughout the entire time, I think this movie didn't know what it wanted to be about either. Did it wanna be the ripoff of a 90's "save the environment" flick or did it actually wanna be like the original involving Pete's actual existence? Hence why I called this movie a pancake to my family after coming home from seeing it. It constantly flips on the cooking pan, and it won't stop.
But what are the good things after my bad things "rant." First of all, I really liked how Pete got along with the main family, especially the daughter. It was an adorable relationship and all of the actors'...well, acting was the way it should've been. The soundtrack was also pretty decent, despite the fact that this retelling was not a musical. Lastly, the CGI on Pete actually made him look adorable and scary at the same time considering the tone of the film, which worked in its favor.
If you want more details, feel free to click on my other review links at the top of this review.
First impressions video:
When I first saw this movie two years ago, I thought it was okay at best. There were plenty of good things about it, but there are the downsides that kinda take over.
The first thing I noticed was the plot. I haven't seen the original movie, but considering this was Disney in the 70's, it looked charming as Disney should. But because this is a live-action retelling, we can't have that luxury. I didn't ask for Pete's Dragon to do much. I just asked for it to be a good movie. However, throughout the entire time, I think this movie didn't know what it wanted to be about either. Did it wanna be the ripoff of a 90's "save the environment" flick or did it actually wanna be like the original involving Pete's actual existence? Hence why I called this movie a pancake to my family after coming home from seeing it. It constantly flips on the cooking pan, and it won't stop.
But what are the good things after my bad things "rant." First of all, I really liked how Pete got along with the main family, especially the daughter. It was an adorable relationship and all of the actors'...well, acting was the way it should've been. The soundtrack was also pretty decent, despite the fact that this retelling was not a musical. Lastly, the CGI on Pete actually made him look adorable and scary at the same time considering the tone of the film, which worked in its favor.
If you want more details, feel free to click on my other review links at the top of this review.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Jan 21, 2020
From a Sci-Fi Lover, It's a No
During a space mission, a spaceship supercomputer malfunctions and tries to kill the ship’s inhabitants. That’s the best I got for 2001: A Space Odyssey. Some films don’t translate far past their creation date and a lot of times, people find it hard to admit that. Hate me now because I wasn’t a fan of this movie in the slightest.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 4
The first few minutes of the movie left me scratching my head. You can save the whole explanation of the artistic aspect of this part, I’m not buying it and I feel directors have hid over “abstract art” for far too long. If it’s not good, it’s not good, and this? It made no sense. I had no desire to watch the rest of the movie after the first ten minutes, but I kept pushing.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 7
Pace: 4
I snapped my fingers quite a bit through the duration of this movie. I wanted so badly for things to move along, but I felt like the movie thought looking great was more important. While it is cinematically stunning (and well deserving of a perfect score in that category), the story moves at an extremely slow clip. For example, so much time was wasted with one particular landing, I wanted to poke my damn eyes out. Watching this movie was like being stuck in traffic during rush hour.
Plot: 2
Resolution: 1
Overall: 62
I recently stopped reading a book because it dragged on so badly and was so confusing, I just couldn’t enjoy it any longer. With 2001: A Space Odyssey, I’ll just say this: When the movie ends and I have to wiki your plot, it probably wasn’t a good movie. I won’t argue that it deserved recognition for pioneering a beautiful vision of space, but the rest can honestly stay in history.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 4
The first few minutes of the movie left me scratching my head. You can save the whole explanation of the artistic aspect of this part, I’m not buying it and I feel directors have hid over “abstract art” for far too long. If it’s not good, it’s not good, and this? It made no sense. I had no desire to watch the rest of the movie after the first ten minutes, but I kept pushing.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 7
Pace: 4
I snapped my fingers quite a bit through the duration of this movie. I wanted so badly for things to move along, but I felt like the movie thought looking great was more important. While it is cinematically stunning (and well deserving of a perfect score in that category), the story moves at an extremely slow clip. For example, so much time was wasted with one particular landing, I wanted to poke my damn eyes out. Watching this movie was like being stuck in traffic during rush hour.
Plot: 2
Resolution: 1
Overall: 62
I recently stopped reading a book because it dragged on so badly and was so confusing, I just couldn’t enjoy it any longer. With 2001: A Space Odyssey, I’ll just say this: When the movie ends and I have to wiki your plot, it probably wasn’t a good movie. I won’t argue that it deserved recognition for pioneering a beautiful vision of space, but the rest can honestly stay in history.
MummyTummy - Pregnancy Food, What to Eat & Avoid!
Medical and Reference
App
Want of the most asked questions related to pregnancy is what to eat during pregnancy and what to...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Jennifer's Body (2009) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
The best way to describe Jennifer's Body is that it's pretty middle of the road. Nothing spectacular, but still pretty entertaining, and a would-be standard demonic posession horror-comedy if it wasn't for some good turns from the cast.
The plot revolves around popular high school teen Jennifer (Megan Fox) becoming possessed after a satanic ritual goes awry. Her best friend Needy (Amanda Seyfried) is caught in the crossfire as she tries to find a way to stop Jennifer's murderous Succubus ways.
The movie misses a trick in its titular character. Megan Fox is good at the whole evil schtick, but Jennifer is possessed for about 95% of the runtime, and for that entire duration, she's an absolute douche. We don't see enough of Jennifer beforehand to feel much sympathy towards her. A flashback sequence dealing with how she ended up possessed starts to lean in that direction, but it's an opportunity that's not explored enough. It feels like there's a message in here about the pressures put on women in today's culture to always look the part. An important message indeed, but it's gets lost somewhat in this oversight.
Amanda Seyfried is the real lead here, and her character is wholly sympathetic, and a huge bonus for the overall film. The relationship between her and her boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons) is believable and often humourous, and together, they add so much to this movie.
It's also worth mentioning that Adam Brody and J.K. Simmons are both great, and definitely provide the best comedic moments.
The scares are spread pretty thin, but there are a few creepy moments here and there, and some decent gore for good measure. A lot of it seemed practical as well which is always a plus. The little CGI on display is a bit dodgy, but a minor gripe.
Overall then, Jennifer's Body is an imperfect, but solidly entertaining splatter film that tries to capture the struggles of being a teenager, and kind of succeeds, and is certainly worth a watch.
The plot revolves around popular high school teen Jennifer (Megan Fox) becoming possessed after a satanic ritual goes awry. Her best friend Needy (Amanda Seyfried) is caught in the crossfire as she tries to find a way to stop Jennifer's murderous Succubus ways.
The movie misses a trick in its titular character. Megan Fox is good at the whole evil schtick, but Jennifer is possessed for about 95% of the runtime, and for that entire duration, she's an absolute douche. We don't see enough of Jennifer beforehand to feel much sympathy towards her. A flashback sequence dealing with how she ended up possessed starts to lean in that direction, but it's an opportunity that's not explored enough. It feels like there's a message in here about the pressures put on women in today's culture to always look the part. An important message indeed, but it's gets lost somewhat in this oversight.
Amanda Seyfried is the real lead here, and her character is wholly sympathetic, and a huge bonus for the overall film. The relationship between her and her boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons) is believable and often humourous, and together, they add so much to this movie.
It's also worth mentioning that Adam Brody and J.K. Simmons are both great, and definitely provide the best comedic moments.
The scares are spread pretty thin, but there are a few creepy moments here and there, and some decent gore for good measure. A lot of it seemed practical as well which is always a plus. The little CGI on display is a bit dodgy, but a minor gripe.
Overall then, Jennifer's Body is an imperfect, but solidly entertaining splatter film that tries to capture the struggles of being a teenager, and kind of succeeds, and is certainly worth a watch.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Rocket: The Blue River Score in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I have to confess: I went into this one with low expectations, largely due to trying to read the previous Rocket outing, Matthew Rosenberg's ROCKET RACCOON: GROUNDED! That book was just depressing as hell, and every character in it just felt wholly out-of-character, as if Rosenberg no flarking clue as to who the characters actually were and how they were SUPPOSED to behave! Fortunately, my pre-"low expectations" were ill-placed, as Trash Panda's outing was as far from the depressing wreck that Rosenberg churned out!
Yes, first and foremost, it was a Rocket Raccoon story, but it was also so much more. It felt not unlike SMOKIN' ACES or SNATCH...only on another planet, with aliens and an augmented raccoon! Writer Al Ewing is clearly a fan of pulp noir novels, and it shows throughout. Ah, if only Marvel would realize what a great film this mini would make!
If you like the wise-cracking, sometimes edgy wit of RR - basically, the RR of the MCU - then this is a book for you! Rocket has a great scheme in here, as well as some good intentions, all of which amounts to a double-cross and an ending that effectively resolves everything with a somewhat bittersweet ending. Bravo, Mr. Ewing! I truly hope Marvel lets him helm another RR solo mini!
And, if that does happen, allowed for another Ewing-helmed outing with RR, I hope that brings along artist Adam Gorham and colorist Michael Garland. Those two brought this fun li'l space heist to life ever so well! I was a big fan of Sara Pichelli's GOTG art for Rocket, but as good as she was, I feel these two were just as good, if not better! Definitely artists (and colorists) to keep an eye out for!
End of the day, you could do a whole lot worse that reading ROCKET: THE BLUE RIVE SCORE. *cough* CIVIL WAR II *cough* Bendis' ALL-NEW X-MEN run *cough cough*
Yes, first and foremost, it was a Rocket Raccoon story, but it was also so much more. It felt not unlike SMOKIN' ACES or SNATCH...only on another planet, with aliens and an augmented raccoon! Writer Al Ewing is clearly a fan of pulp noir novels, and it shows throughout. Ah, if only Marvel would realize what a great film this mini would make!
If you like the wise-cracking, sometimes edgy wit of RR - basically, the RR of the MCU - then this is a book for you! Rocket has a great scheme in here, as well as some good intentions, all of which amounts to a double-cross and an ending that effectively resolves everything with a somewhat bittersweet ending. Bravo, Mr. Ewing! I truly hope Marvel lets him helm another RR solo mini!
And, if that does happen, allowed for another Ewing-helmed outing with RR, I hope that brings along artist Adam Gorham and colorist Michael Garland. Those two brought this fun li'l space heist to life ever so well! I was a big fan of Sara Pichelli's GOTG art for Rocket, but as good as she was, I feel these two were just as good, if not better! Definitely artists (and colorists) to keep an eye out for!
End of the day, you could do a whole lot worse that reading ROCKET: THE BLUE RIVE SCORE. *cough* CIVIL WAR II *cough* Bendis' ALL-NEW X-MEN run *cough cough*
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated Billy and Me in Books
Jun 24, 2019
This is a very, very different genre than I usually read. It was romantic and contemporary and kind of cliche and gross. But I will admit that it was written well.
Despite the gooey topics, this book was easy to sit and read through. The writing was good, though some of the speech didn't feel particularly authentic. My main problem was how cliche this was. A young woman who loves classic literature andworks in a tea shop meets a movie star without realising who he is and falls in love... Yeah, it's kind of a stereotypical romance. I hate this sort of thing. It's tacky and just ugh. But there was more to it than just the romance, which was very good. Sophie had her own issues to deal with, stemming from childhood grief and caring for her mother. It even had a really tragic moment toward the end, that didn't involve the actor - Billy - much at all.
As I mentioned above, the language wasn't always particularly fluid. It sometimes felt like Fletcher was trying too hard to make it more romantic and emotional. Billy was pretty much 'perfect' and extremely romantic, probably extremely unrealistically so. He was likeable, still, just not very realistic.
Sophie herself was a bit... not annoying, but she's not my favourite protagonist ever. She was trying too hard to be unique and strong and independent and it just irritated me. I get what Fletcher was going for (I think) but I just didn't love Sophie that much at all.
Like most other contemporary novels (not that I've actually read many of them), Sophie's life comes together perfectly at the end. Well, not quite perfectly, but the ending was sickly sweet. But I'm a bit of a cynic. You might like this more than me.
Despite the genre and gross cutesy lovey stuff, I think this deserves 3.5 stars. The writing was good and I did actually enjoy reading it.
Despite the gooey topics, this book was easy to sit and read through. The writing was good, though some of the speech didn't feel particularly authentic. My main problem was how cliche this was. A young woman who loves classic literature andworks in a tea shop meets a movie star without realising who he is and falls in love... Yeah, it's kind of a stereotypical romance. I hate this sort of thing. It's tacky and just ugh. But there was more to it than just the romance, which was very good. Sophie had her own issues to deal with, stemming from childhood grief and caring for her mother. It even had a really tragic moment toward the end, that didn't involve the actor - Billy - much at all.
As I mentioned above, the language wasn't always particularly fluid. It sometimes felt like Fletcher was trying too hard to make it more romantic and emotional. Billy was pretty much 'perfect' and extremely romantic, probably extremely unrealistically so. He was likeable, still, just not very realistic.
Sophie herself was a bit... not annoying, but she's not my favourite protagonist ever. She was trying too hard to be unique and strong and independent and it just irritated me. I get what Fletcher was going for (I think) but I just didn't love Sophie that much at all.
Like most other contemporary novels (not that I've actually read many of them), Sophie's life comes together perfectly at the end. Well, not quite perfectly, but the ending was sickly sweet. But I'm a bit of a cynic. You might like this more than me.
Despite the genre and gross cutesy lovey stuff, I think this deserves 3.5 stars. The writing was good and I did actually enjoy reading it.
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated Tyranny in Books
Jun 24, 2019
So as you've probably realised by now, I have anorexia. And because of that, I am always drawn to books about eating disorders, including this graphic novel I found in the library. It's always good to see realistic and relatable presentations of ED's, and I'm also always quick to point out when something is being portrayed wrong.
This book was a pretty accurate representation of my own personal battle with anorexia. It addressed the starving and the bingeing that many anorexics go through, as well as the body dysmorphia and unhealthy habits and routines. It included friends of Anna (the protagonist of this book) who are also suffering - one of which eventually suffered a heart attack and died. It's not uncommon for people with anorexia to have friends who pass away as a result of the unhealthy habits brought on by the disorder.
Anna does eventually decide she wants life, and goes into treatment. She learns to tell Tyranny (the voice/persons of her ED) that she doesn't care about being thin anymore, and eventually she gets her to leave entirely. (I can't say that's happened to me; it's more of an ongoing, up-and-down struggle in my experience.)
One thing I wasn't sure was so good about this book was the inclusion of weights - her weight loss process, the weight of another patient. This can be incredibly triggering for people suffering with an eating disorder, and can make people feel invalidated - feeling as if their ED isn't as "bad" or "real" because their weight wasn't quite as low. For this reason, I would be hesitant about recommending this book to people who are trying to recover from their disorder.
Overall, I felt it was a good portrayal of anorexia. It was brutally honest and included both the starving and the bingeing, which lots of people don't often discuss. 4.5 stars.
This book was a pretty accurate representation of my own personal battle with anorexia. It addressed the starving and the bingeing that many anorexics go through, as well as the body dysmorphia and unhealthy habits and routines. It included friends of Anna (the protagonist of this book) who are also suffering - one of which eventually suffered a heart attack and died. It's not uncommon for people with anorexia to have friends who pass away as a result of the unhealthy habits brought on by the disorder.
Anna does eventually decide she wants life, and goes into treatment. She learns to tell Tyranny (the voice/persons of her ED) that she doesn't care about being thin anymore, and eventually she gets her to leave entirely. (I can't say that's happened to me; it's more of an ongoing, up-and-down struggle in my experience.)
One thing I wasn't sure was so good about this book was the inclusion of weights - her weight loss process, the weight of another patient. This can be incredibly triggering for people suffering with an eating disorder, and can make people feel invalidated - feeling as if their ED isn't as "bad" or "real" because their weight wasn't quite as low. For this reason, I would be hesitant about recommending this book to people who are trying to recover from their disorder.
Overall, I felt it was a good portrayal of anorexia. It was brutally honest and included both the starving and the bingeing, which lots of people don't often discuss. 4.5 stars.
Lee (2222 KP) May 29, 2019