Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005) in Movies
Nov 29, 2019 (Updated Dec 20, 2019)
The final chapter of the Star Wars prequel trilogy is definitely the high point (which isn't the highest praise...) throwing a large amount of sci-fi action at the audience, whilst bring the Star Wars narrative full circle and finally tying into the first film.
The action is over gratuitous at times, but it's still entertaining enough - the opening space battle, the climatic battle between Jedis, the harrowing Order 66 scene.
The special effects here are noticably improved from Episodes I and II, and once again, the various locations and landscapes that we're shown are stunning to look at (Kashyyyk is a good example).
The most important character arc here is of course Anakin's, as he completes his turn to the dark side and steps further towards the iconic Darth Vader. I much prefer Hayden Christensen this time around, although he's still wooden in parts - I get the feeling that he's trying his best, but George Lucas isn't giving a whole lot for him to work with.
Ewan McGregor is great once again as Obi Wan.
The biggest new character we're introduced to in ROTS is General Grievous, who's ok I guess - he's nothing more than a CGI model designed to sell merchandise, but then again, who doesn't want to see someone wield four lightsabers at once ey?
The dialogue is just about more bearable than in the other two prequel films, and the movie has a general sense of 'getting shit done' than before, and it's all the better for it and has some dark turns here and there.
There are some cringey bits of course - the unessecary Chewbacca line for one, and of course, the god awful 'NOOOOOOO' line near the end (literal sick in my mouth)
When looking back on the prequel trilogy of Star Wars, it's easy to cast them aside and say they're no good, when in reality, that's not wholly true. They have they're moments and will always be something that I'll (maybe) watch when they're on TV...
The action is over gratuitous at times, but it's still entertaining enough - the opening space battle, the climatic battle between Jedis, the harrowing Order 66 scene.
The special effects here are noticably improved from Episodes I and II, and once again, the various locations and landscapes that we're shown are stunning to look at (Kashyyyk is a good example).
The most important character arc here is of course Anakin's, as he completes his turn to the dark side and steps further towards the iconic Darth Vader. I much prefer Hayden Christensen this time around, although he's still wooden in parts - I get the feeling that he's trying his best, but George Lucas isn't giving a whole lot for him to work with.
Ewan McGregor is great once again as Obi Wan.
The biggest new character we're introduced to in ROTS is General Grievous, who's ok I guess - he's nothing more than a CGI model designed to sell merchandise, but then again, who doesn't want to see someone wield four lightsabers at once ey?
The dialogue is just about more bearable than in the other two prequel films, and the movie has a general sense of 'getting shit done' than before, and it's all the better for it and has some dark turns here and there.
There are some cringey bits of course - the unessecary Chewbacca line for one, and of course, the god awful 'NOOOOOOO' line near the end (literal sick in my mouth)
When looking back on the prequel trilogy of Star Wars, it's easy to cast them aside and say they're no good, when in reality, that's not wholly true. They have they're moments and will always be something that I'll (maybe) watch when they're on TV...
JT (287 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Brilliant cinematography (2 more)
Great score
Fantastic central characters
A stunning film which hits hard both physically and emotionally
particular emphasis on cinematography. The World War I film is made to look like one continuous shot by director Sam Mendes whose one-shot opening of Spectre gave us a taste of things to come.
The film swept awards season with the film winning Best Drama Motion Picture at the Golden Globes, not to mention cleaning up at the BAFTAs. This was a strong indication that Mendes might have a hand on a couple of Oscars.
1917 tells the story of two Lance Corporals, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) who are tasked with hand-delivering a message to another battalion who are inadvertently walking into a trap – Blake’s brother among them. If they fail then 1,600 men will lose their lives.
Blake and Schofield have been through a lot. When we first meet them they are relaxing beneath a tree, taking a break trying to enjoy the peaceful surroundings.
Without so much as a thought the pair salute General Erinmore (Colin Firth) and start the first part of their harrowing journey crossing no man’s land. The film is gripping in every sense of the word and you feel as if you are making the treacherous journey with them.
The scenery is devastatingly realistic, particularly the trip across no man’s land where charred bodies are buried deep in bombed-out craters of mud, their faces starring out in a look of shock.
The cast is limited to a few big-name cameos which aren’t blink and you miss them. Joining Firth is Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch who make a significant impression in key scenes. The film flows incredibly well and never takes a back step, quite literally.
This is a journey that rivals Saving Private Ryan for it’s impactfulness, and why the memories of those who fought in the great war should always be forever remembered as true heroes.
The film swept awards season with the film winning Best Drama Motion Picture at the Golden Globes, not to mention cleaning up at the BAFTAs. This was a strong indication that Mendes might have a hand on a couple of Oscars.
1917 tells the story of two Lance Corporals, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) who are tasked with hand-delivering a message to another battalion who are inadvertently walking into a trap – Blake’s brother among them. If they fail then 1,600 men will lose their lives.
Blake and Schofield have been through a lot. When we first meet them they are relaxing beneath a tree, taking a break trying to enjoy the peaceful surroundings.
Without so much as a thought the pair salute General Erinmore (Colin Firth) and start the first part of their harrowing journey crossing no man’s land. The film is gripping in every sense of the word and you feel as if you are making the treacherous journey with them.
The scenery is devastatingly realistic, particularly the trip across no man’s land where charred bodies are buried deep in bombed-out craters of mud, their faces starring out in a look of shock.
The cast is limited to a few big-name cameos which aren’t blink and you miss them. Joining Firth is Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch who make a significant impression in key scenes. The film flows incredibly well and never takes a back step, quite literally.
This is a journey that rivals Saving Private Ryan for it’s impactfulness, and why the memories of those who fought in the great war should always be forever remembered as true heroes.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Money Monster (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Growing up, whenever a political or economic scandal was featured on the news, my father would utter the words, “Follow the money.” This phrase was made famous by “Deep Throat” during the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down the Nixon Administration. In the film Money Monster which stars George Clooney and Julia Roberts, this is a question that we start to ask ourselves as a financial investment show is taken captive by a disgruntled investor while it is airing live.
Clooney, who serves as the show’s host, quickly finds himself in the middle of a storm of tension and deception as he and his captor try to discover what happened to over $800 million in investments. The film itself is sufficient as an overview for satisfying our need for some sense of understanding at how corrupt and unstable the financial industry can be. Through much of the film, I found myself wondering about how many people wanted these same answers in 2008 during the financial market meltdowns and the collapse of the housing markets. The film approaches this anger that hit the American working class, but do not delve deeper than the superficial issues and discontent. There is a major lack of depth and this might be a metaphor for the industry itself that is built on confusion, misdirection, and a lack of substance. The plot is simplistic and does not allow for any surprises or twists.
It is a very straightforward movie where a flawed character wants answers. He wants closure. He wants to bring to justice the people who ruined the lives of countless Americans and took advantage of their desire to experience the American Dream. Despite the lack of complexity and a few holes in the storytelling, Money Monster provides a few laughs and leaves the audience asking questions about how deep the problems and corruption may be within our financial system nearly 8 years after the collapse. It makes us want to “follow the money” in the hopes that we will find answers.
Clooney, who serves as the show’s host, quickly finds himself in the middle of a storm of tension and deception as he and his captor try to discover what happened to over $800 million in investments. The film itself is sufficient as an overview for satisfying our need for some sense of understanding at how corrupt and unstable the financial industry can be. Through much of the film, I found myself wondering about how many people wanted these same answers in 2008 during the financial market meltdowns and the collapse of the housing markets. The film approaches this anger that hit the American working class, but do not delve deeper than the superficial issues and discontent. There is a major lack of depth and this might be a metaphor for the industry itself that is built on confusion, misdirection, and a lack of substance. The plot is simplistic and does not allow for any surprises or twists.
It is a very straightforward movie where a flawed character wants answers. He wants closure. He wants to bring to justice the people who ruined the lives of countless Americans and took advantage of their desire to experience the American Dream. Despite the lack of complexity and a few holes in the storytelling, Money Monster provides a few laughs and leaves the audience asking questions about how deep the problems and corruption may be within our financial system nearly 8 years after the collapse. It makes us want to “follow the money” in the hopes that we will find answers.
Hat Monkey - for kids to sing, play and have fun
Book and Education
App
Hat Monkey is a small monkey with a hat who needs our help around the house. Young children will...
Top Fear: The Remaking of a TV Legend
Book
'Today and every day for me, up until May 2016, is all about the first episode of the brand new Top...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2018) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Oct 26, 2020)
This Re-Imagining A Romero Classic Fails To Rise Above Average
Contains spoilers, click to show
Even copying or borrowing from George A. Romero's unique concept couldn't make this film better than an average zombie film. I was excited to see their interpretation of the smarter or more capable than average zombie in this movie and their origin story for him was quite unique and interesting. He was an obsessive stalker and attempted rapist whose body has a high amounts of antibodies. Five years after the main character Zoe escapes Whittendale University she gets the military to go back for medical supplies and Max is still there except a zombie but more. He finds her and sneaks back to their base "Cape Fear" style and then sneaks into the base. I found that a little unbelievable that he was able to sneak onto and into the base so easily but also kind of believable since it's been 5 years without any incidents as far as the audience knows. I also think that the movie was kind of inconsistent with what he's able to do or how much he can reason. He's smart enough to sneak into the base, and through vents but gets caught when he attacks Zoe and is captured. They order her to come up with a vaccine in 48 hours or Max will be killed regardless but then don't put an armed guard to watch over him. That was also a little to convenient to me. He manages to steal the handcuff keys form a soldier during a scuffle too which I thought was rather brilliant. Some good stuff in this movie but some stuff I thought could have been better done or different. As I mentioned some of the actors could have done a better job or the dialogue, story wasn't that original but overall a decent average zombie movie. Worth watching if your looking for a zombie movie to watch but nothing to wow you out of your seat. I give this movie a 5/10.
https://youtu.be/KTtNIIL3NXw
https://youtu.be/KTtNIIL3NXw
What scares you the most? Ghouls, vampires, slime-fanged aliens ...or something terrible that truly could happen? For me it's definitely the latter.
Our narrator, Jon, is a historian witnessing the most monumental event of humanity but at a great distance. He feels compelled to keep a record of the people isolated with him in a vast hotel. He collects their stories and feelings in the faint hope that some sort of civilisation will survive long enough to rediscover them. Through his journal we experience what it would be like to be aware that the world was ending, billions dying, but be totally disconnected from the horrific events.
Most books set during an apocalypse are fraught with traumatic dashes, violent brushes with death, horror and misery. There are elements of that here but this book mostly poses the question of what you would do if there was little drama but lots of time to dwell on things. The people in the hotel are comparatively safe in an old hotel surrounded by forest. They wait for something to happen, for someone to rescue them, or perhaps just for their food to run out. Jon embarks on a quest to solve one cruel murder, taking him down a path of mistrust and near hysteria.
I enjoyed the blend of dystopia and murder mystery; the first half of the book reads like a modern day progeny of George Orwell and Agatha Christie. Asking your audience to imagine bombs wiping out entire countries but then drastically limiting their focus to one death amongst multitudes is startling. I also liked the references to real people and places, there were definite shades of the Cecil Hotel here for a true-crime/horror podcast junkie like me to appreciate. However, I do feel that the novel lost it's way towards the end - trying to be all things to all people perhaps. It's definitely worth reading and I'm keen to see more from this author.
Our narrator, Jon, is a historian witnessing the most monumental event of humanity but at a great distance. He feels compelled to keep a record of the people isolated with him in a vast hotel. He collects their stories and feelings in the faint hope that some sort of civilisation will survive long enough to rediscover them. Through his journal we experience what it would be like to be aware that the world was ending, billions dying, but be totally disconnected from the horrific events.
Most books set during an apocalypse are fraught with traumatic dashes, violent brushes with death, horror and misery. There are elements of that here but this book mostly poses the question of what you would do if there was little drama but lots of time to dwell on things. The people in the hotel are comparatively safe in an old hotel surrounded by forest. They wait for something to happen, for someone to rescue them, or perhaps just for their food to run out. Jon embarks on a quest to solve one cruel murder, taking him down a path of mistrust and near hysteria.
I enjoyed the blend of dystopia and murder mystery; the first half of the book reads like a modern day progeny of George Orwell and Agatha Christie. Asking your audience to imagine bombs wiping out entire countries but then drastically limiting their focus to one death amongst multitudes is startling. I also liked the references to real people and places, there were definite shades of the Cecil Hotel here for a true-crime/horror podcast junkie like me to appreciate. However, I do feel that the novel lost it's way towards the end - trying to be all things to all people perhaps. It's definitely worth reading and I'm keen to see more from this author.
The World of Tomorrow
Book
Three brothers caught up in a whirlwind week of love, blackmail, and betrayal that culminates in an...
Fiction
The Mad, Bad Duke (Nvengaria, #2)
10.0
Rate It
Book
London, 1820 Miss Meagan Tavistock doesn’t believe the talisman her friend purchases from a...