Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Final Destination 5 (2011) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Did we really need another Final Destination film? After the last, merely average movie, the answer on everyone’s lips was a firm and resounding no. However, a surprising return to form for the franchise has ensured that even this old goat has life in it yet.
Gone are the cheap, cheesy shocks that littered Final Destination 3 and 4. In their place are the genuine thrills and spills from the first two films. The movie returns the guessing game element to its audience and for that I am thoroughly grateful.
Newcomer Steven Quale helms this instalment which combines excellent 3D with fantastic special effects and a dazzling set of opening credits which showcase the deaths from the films that preceded it. I wasn’t expecting much from this film, I have to admit, but the credits really are a highlight as you try and remember which film each death is from.
As with any film in the Final Destination franchise, an epic opening disaster is the norm. Whilst the motorway pileup from Final Destination 2 has been the best up until now, the bridge collapse in this film is utterly mesmerising and edge of your seat thrilling. From the flawless special effects to the scale of the production, it surpasses anything seen before in the series.
The deaths have also returned to form too. Instead of out and out cheese, they’re shocking to the point of jaw-dropping. It’ll have you checking every loose nut and bolt from now on and probably have you resisting that fashionable laser eye surgery too. Thankfully though, away from the deaths, it errs on the side of humorous without delving into slapstick.
Nicholas D’Agosto leads a small cast as they try and find a way to cheat death after surviving that epic bridge disaster. An interesting storyline this time around has the cast told that they are able to cheat death by killing someone else, therefore having their life swapped with yours. The acting from all corners leaves a lot to be desired and the dialogue and performances are unashamedly wooden but this is a small point in a film that really does shock and surprise.
However, perhaps the best part of the film and the reason why it’s so enjoyable is the final twist, a twist that will leave you shouting at the screen in dismay. It’s practically impossible to see it coming until the last 5 minutes and in these last minutes you realise just how clever director Steven Quale has been in creating this film.
It may not be the most original movie to ever grace the big screen and the cast aren’t going to trouble the Oscars but Final Destination 5 returns a lifeless franchise to what it once was, bloody good fun and as such it is by far, the best in the series.
So, the question now is; do we need Final Destination 6?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/09/21/review-final-destination-5-2011/
Gone are the cheap, cheesy shocks that littered Final Destination 3 and 4. In their place are the genuine thrills and spills from the first two films. The movie returns the guessing game element to its audience and for that I am thoroughly grateful.
Newcomer Steven Quale helms this instalment which combines excellent 3D with fantastic special effects and a dazzling set of opening credits which showcase the deaths from the films that preceded it. I wasn’t expecting much from this film, I have to admit, but the credits really are a highlight as you try and remember which film each death is from.
As with any film in the Final Destination franchise, an epic opening disaster is the norm. Whilst the motorway pileup from Final Destination 2 has been the best up until now, the bridge collapse in this film is utterly mesmerising and edge of your seat thrilling. From the flawless special effects to the scale of the production, it surpasses anything seen before in the series.
The deaths have also returned to form too. Instead of out and out cheese, they’re shocking to the point of jaw-dropping. It’ll have you checking every loose nut and bolt from now on and probably have you resisting that fashionable laser eye surgery too. Thankfully though, away from the deaths, it errs on the side of humorous without delving into slapstick.
Nicholas D’Agosto leads a small cast as they try and find a way to cheat death after surviving that epic bridge disaster. An interesting storyline this time around has the cast told that they are able to cheat death by killing someone else, therefore having their life swapped with yours. The acting from all corners leaves a lot to be desired and the dialogue and performances are unashamedly wooden but this is a small point in a film that really does shock and surprise.
However, perhaps the best part of the film and the reason why it’s so enjoyable is the final twist, a twist that will leave you shouting at the screen in dismay. It’s practically impossible to see it coming until the last 5 minutes and in these last minutes you realise just how clever director Steven Quale has been in creating this film.
It may not be the most original movie to ever grace the big screen and the cast aren’t going to trouble the Oscars but Final Destination 5 returns a lifeless franchise to what it once was, bloody good fun and as such it is by far, the best in the series.
So, the question now is; do we need Final Destination 6?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/09/21/review-final-destination-5-2011/
Debbiereadsbook (1424 KP) rated Unlikely Hero (AUDIO) in Books
May 14, 2018
excellent narration of a great book!
Independent reviewer for Divine Magazine, I was gifted the audio version of this book.
Brock never got over Eric leaving him, but he understood why Eric needed to go. When Eric calls, 9 years later, Brock drops everything and calls upon his considerable resources to find Eric's 3 year old daughter , who has been kidnapped. But having Eric and Josie under his roof, to keep them safe, has Brock thinking about all the things he missed out on.
I loved this!!
Brock loved Eric, never stopped so of course he's gonna help him find his daughter! I loved that, right from Eric turning up at his office, Brock is calling him baby. I don;'t usually, so it surprised me here that I did love it! I think it surprised Brock too, the first time he did it!
Brock makes no apologies for his wealth and power and he pulls no punches in using both to keep Eric and Josie safe, and in finding out who is doing this.
But we don't get Eric, at all. This is told entirely from Brock's POV in the third person. And I really REALLY needed to hear from Eric at key points along the way: when Josie is first discovered gone; when he walks into Brock's office and when he finds out just who is behind it all. This is the only reason I gave the book 4 stars, because Eric is not given a voice, and he needed one.
I loved the supporting cast, especially Max and Gordon. They have a tale to tell, not least because of what goes down here!
Jeff Gelder narrates. This is the first, as far as I can see, that I have listened to of his work and I was very impressed. His reading voice is deep and even, and his voices consistent and easily identifiable in multi person conversations. Loved his voice for Josie, who sounded just like a 3 year old should, with all the funny things they say. Gelder gets over all of Brock's emotions in all the right places.
I cannot fault the narration. Gelder is firmly on my to listen list!
4 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration.
4.5 (rounded down to 4) overall.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Brock never got over Eric leaving him, but he understood why Eric needed to go. When Eric calls, 9 years later, Brock drops everything and calls upon his considerable resources to find Eric's 3 year old daughter , who has been kidnapped. But having Eric and Josie under his roof, to keep them safe, has Brock thinking about all the things he missed out on.
I loved this!!
Brock loved Eric, never stopped so of course he's gonna help him find his daughter! I loved that, right from Eric turning up at his office, Brock is calling him baby. I don;'t usually, so it surprised me here that I did love it! I think it surprised Brock too, the first time he did it!
Brock makes no apologies for his wealth and power and he pulls no punches in using both to keep Eric and Josie safe, and in finding out who is doing this.
But we don't get Eric, at all. This is told entirely from Brock's POV in the third person. And I really REALLY needed to hear from Eric at key points along the way: when Josie is first discovered gone; when he walks into Brock's office and when he finds out just who is behind it all. This is the only reason I gave the book 4 stars, because Eric is not given a voice, and he needed one.
I loved the supporting cast, especially Max and Gordon. They have a tale to tell, not least because of what goes down here!
Jeff Gelder narrates. This is the first, as far as I can see, that I have listened to of his work and I was very impressed. His reading voice is deep and even, and his voices consistent and easily identifiable in multi person conversations. Loved his voice for Josie, who sounded just like a 3 year old should, with all the funny things they say. Gelder gets over all of Brock's emotions in all the right places.
I cannot fault the narration. Gelder is firmly on my to listen list!
4 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration.
4.5 (rounded down to 4) overall.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Graham Massey recommended Welcome by Santana in Music (curated)
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Nintendo Switch in Tech
Aug 13, 2018
One massive selling point (just about) outweighs the negatives
If I’m being frankly honest, I never would’ve bought a Switch had Legend of Zelda and Mario Kart been available on the PS4. Those games are the reason why I invested in this console and although the games themselves are fantastic, the console itself is a little hit and miss.
I’ll start with the positives: it looks good and especially in grey, it looks quite sleek and smart and fits in well with the rest of my tech. It’s easy to set up and very simple to use. The joy cons are small but functional and work well when used as a full controller. The main selling point for this console though is the ability to use as a portable as well as docked on a tv screen. This is by far the best feature - gone are the days of arguing over who gets to play their favourite game. Now me & my other half can both play on separate consoles in peace without having arguments over the tv. The switching between docked and handheld is pretty seamless too and very impressive.
However, now for the negatives: the console interface is almost a little too basic. No apps, just a very simplified menu and store. Considering all other consoles nowadays come with lots of downloadable apps, the Switch appears to be a little bare. The joy cons whilst handy, aren’t ideal for long term gameplay when separated. Trying to play multiplayer using the tiny controllers for longer than half an hour or so gives you a serious case of rsi (and I work on a laptop for a living). Charging the joy cons is also a bit of a pain as unless you invest in extra accessories (more on that in a sec), your basic way of charging is clipping them onto the console either when in use portably or docked. The way the console fits into the dock itself also feels a little wobbly and can easily be subjected to scratches - definitely invest in a screen protector!
My main issue with the Switch though is how ridiculously overpriced it and all of its games and accessories are, especially considering some of the negatives I’ve stated above. Despite the fact that the console has been out now for nearly 18 months, it doesn’t seem like you can get many bargains. I appreciate you get a 2 in 1 console, but it still doesn’t feel like you get much in the box. What with all of the added extras you probably need to buy, like charging docks, additional joy cons and controllers, screen protectors etc plus games, this can run to quite a high price. Maybe it’s just because it’s still a fairly new console, but it still seems more expensive than the other mainstream consoles and their accessories.
Don’t get me wrong, the Switch is a fun console and the portable aspects are really fantastic. I can’t wait to take it on my next long haul flight. I just can’t shake the feeling that I’ve overpaid and other than the portability and the Nintendo specific games, I’m not sure if it has any other selling points.
I’ll start with the positives: it looks good and especially in grey, it looks quite sleek and smart and fits in well with the rest of my tech. It’s easy to set up and very simple to use. The joy cons are small but functional and work well when used as a full controller. The main selling point for this console though is the ability to use as a portable as well as docked on a tv screen. This is by far the best feature - gone are the days of arguing over who gets to play their favourite game. Now me & my other half can both play on separate consoles in peace without having arguments over the tv. The switching between docked and handheld is pretty seamless too and very impressive.
However, now for the negatives: the console interface is almost a little too basic. No apps, just a very simplified menu and store. Considering all other consoles nowadays come with lots of downloadable apps, the Switch appears to be a little bare. The joy cons whilst handy, aren’t ideal for long term gameplay when separated. Trying to play multiplayer using the tiny controllers for longer than half an hour or so gives you a serious case of rsi (and I work on a laptop for a living). Charging the joy cons is also a bit of a pain as unless you invest in extra accessories (more on that in a sec), your basic way of charging is clipping them onto the console either when in use portably or docked. The way the console fits into the dock itself also feels a little wobbly and can easily be subjected to scratches - definitely invest in a screen protector!
My main issue with the Switch though is how ridiculously overpriced it and all of its games and accessories are, especially considering some of the negatives I’ve stated above. Despite the fact that the console has been out now for nearly 18 months, it doesn’t seem like you can get many bargains. I appreciate you get a 2 in 1 console, but it still doesn’t feel like you get much in the box. What with all of the added extras you probably need to buy, like charging docks, additional joy cons and controllers, screen protectors etc plus games, this can run to quite a high price. Maybe it’s just because it’s still a fairly new console, but it still seems more expensive than the other mainstream consoles and their accessories.
Don’t get me wrong, the Switch is a fun console and the portable aspects are really fantastic. I can’t wait to take it on my next long haul flight. I just can’t shake the feeling that I’ve overpaid and other than the portability and the Nintendo specific games, I’m not sure if it has any other selling points.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Alice Takes Back Wonderland in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
When a book starts with “‘Do you know fairy tales are real’ asked the cat,” you know you are in for a magical ride. Nearly everyone knows the tale of the seven-year-old girl from nineteenth century London who falls down a rabbit hole and spends a day of madness in the magical world of Wonderland. In David D. Hammons version, however, Alice was a young girl from twenty-first century Missouri. On her return to the real world she was diagnosed with ADHD and Schizophrenia and forced to believe that the Cheshire Cat and the Mad Hatter were figments of her imagination. But ten years later a white rabbit appears and leads Alice back to the world where nothing makes sense.
All is not well in Wonderland. The Cheshire Cat is dead and the Ace of Spades is in charge. Barely anything is the way Alice remembers. Everything looks far too “normal” and similar to the world she comes from. Ace is determined to remove the wonder from Wonderland and create a place where madness is forbidden. Alice has a big fight on her hands as she tries to end this former playing card’s tyrannous reign and restore Wonderland back to its original insanity.
<i>Alice Takes Back Wonderland</i> is not purely a retelling of Lewis Carrols famous story. Although many of the well known and loved characters appear in this book, so do others from a variety of different fairytales: <i>Peter Pan, Pinocchio</i>, and various tales from the <i>Brothers Grimm</i>. As readers will discover, all is not exactly as it should be for these characters either. Despite them being contrasting, magical stories, Hammons has successfully merged them all together in an imaginative manner resulting in a humorous young adult novel.
Although mostly focused on the goings on in Wonderland and the other fictional locations, it is also a subtle metaphor to describe what Alice’s life had been like back in present day America. For a decade Alice was forced to take medication to help her understand the difference between reality and fantasy. It got rid of most of the nonsense thoughts she picked up during her first visit to Wonderland. In a way, that is what the Ace of Spades is doing to characters he believes are mad. He is taking the wonder out of them, just like the pills to the wonder out of Alice.
Lovers of fairytales will definitely love this book, especially those who grew up loving <i>Alice in Wonderland</i> and <i>Peter Pan</i>. In some ways it is a continuation of the original tale, yet in other ways it could be viewed as an alternative way the story could have gone. Primarily targeted at young adults, <i>Alice Takes Back Wonderland</i> is much darker than Carrols version and combines a mix of real life with fantasy. It also goes to show that no one is too old for fairytales!
When a book starts with “‘Do you know fairy tales are real’ asked the cat,” you know you are in for a magical ride. Nearly everyone knows the tale of the seven-year-old girl from nineteenth century London who falls down a rabbit hole and spends a day of madness in the magical world of Wonderland. In David D. Hammons version, however, Alice was a young girl from twenty-first century Missouri. On her return to the real world she was diagnosed with ADHD and Schizophrenia and forced to believe that the Cheshire Cat and the Mad Hatter were figments of her imagination. But ten years later a white rabbit appears and leads Alice back to the world where nothing makes sense.
All is not well in Wonderland. The Cheshire Cat is dead and the Ace of Spades is in charge. Barely anything is the way Alice remembers. Everything looks far too “normal” and similar to the world she comes from. Ace is determined to remove the wonder from Wonderland and create a place where madness is forbidden. Alice has a big fight on her hands as she tries to end this former playing card’s tyrannous reign and restore Wonderland back to its original insanity.
<i>Alice Takes Back Wonderland</i> is not purely a retelling of Lewis Carrols famous story. Although many of the well known and loved characters appear in this book, so do others from a variety of different fairytales: <i>Peter Pan, Pinocchio</i>, and various tales from the <i>Brothers Grimm</i>. As readers will discover, all is not exactly as it should be for these characters either. Despite them being contrasting, magical stories, Hammons has successfully merged them all together in an imaginative manner resulting in a humorous young adult novel.
Although mostly focused on the goings on in Wonderland and the other fictional locations, it is also a subtle metaphor to describe what Alice’s life had been like back in present day America. For a decade Alice was forced to take medication to help her understand the difference between reality and fantasy. It got rid of most of the nonsense thoughts she picked up during her first visit to Wonderland. In a way, that is what the Ace of Spades is doing to characters he believes are mad. He is taking the wonder out of them, just like the pills to the wonder out of Alice.
Lovers of fairytales will definitely love this book, especially those who grew up loving <i>Alice in Wonderland</i> and <i>Peter Pan</i>. In some ways it is a continuation of the original tale, yet in other ways it could be viewed as an alternative way the story could have gone. Primarily targeted at young adults, <i>Alice Takes Back Wonderland</i> is much darker than Carrols version and combines a mix of real life with fantasy. It also goes to show that no one is too old for fairytales!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Karma (2021) in Movies
Sep 6, 2021
Neat idea for a movie (1 more)
Samantha Belle
Script is rambling and needs much tightening up (1 more)
Acting is often sub-par
You’ve got to admire the effort here.
Positives:
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Feb 3, 2021
On the surface, you could argue that Doctor Strange isn't all that different from Iron Man in terms of structure. Rich, white dude with a goatee lives out his life, arrogantly full of himself until a life altering incident forces him to fight to survive, setting him on a path of betterment and redemption. Whilst this is unarguably true, the fact is that this movie is so much more than retreading familiar ground. Gone are the times where superhero movies play it safe. Guardians of the Galaxy may have knocked down the doors, but Doctor Strange takes the cosmic concept, and runs full speed with it. Marvel Studios have got to the point where they can make a movie about the Dark Dimension, the Mirror Dimension, the Sorcerer Supreme, Dormammu, the multiverse, and audiences will still lap it up, and I'm here for it.
Sinister director Scott Derrickson proves to be a smart choice, as he provides us a story that's humourous, full of heart, brimming with new lore, and is visually mind bending. The aesthetic if this movie is what sets it apart from its kin. Sure it doesn't stray too far from the Marvel formula, but it does something different. Many have compared it to Inception, which isn't an unfair note, and it makes for some wonderful looking set pieces.
Benedict Cumberbatch is picture perfect as Stephen Strange himself and is joined by a stellar supporting cast. Chiwetel Ejiofor, Tilda Swinton, Mads Mikkelsen, Benedict Wong, and Rachel McAdams are all great in their respective roles. Mikkelsen gives us a compelling villain in Kaecilius, jaded by an order he's followed for years and turning tail to pursue what he thinks is right (not to dissimilar to Thanos in that respect). We're also introduced briefly to Dormammu, which is certainly exciting to any fans of the comics. With the Infinity Saga all wrapped up, this could prove to be seed planting for a future big bad.
Doctor Strange could have easily just been another run of the mill origin story (which some believe it is, and that's ok!) but for me, it's so much more. It manages to build on Marvel lore, whilst teasing future story lines by flirting with the Multiverse and the Dark Dimension, all while never losing focus on its very human story. It's a fantastic first outing for one of Marvel's more out there characters and one of my favourites of the whole franchise.
Sinister director Scott Derrickson proves to be a smart choice, as he provides us a story that's humourous, full of heart, brimming with new lore, and is visually mind bending. The aesthetic if this movie is what sets it apart from its kin. Sure it doesn't stray too far from the Marvel formula, but it does something different. Many have compared it to Inception, which isn't an unfair note, and it makes for some wonderful looking set pieces.
Benedict Cumberbatch is picture perfect as Stephen Strange himself and is joined by a stellar supporting cast. Chiwetel Ejiofor, Tilda Swinton, Mads Mikkelsen, Benedict Wong, and Rachel McAdams are all great in their respective roles. Mikkelsen gives us a compelling villain in Kaecilius, jaded by an order he's followed for years and turning tail to pursue what he thinks is right (not to dissimilar to Thanos in that respect). We're also introduced briefly to Dormammu, which is certainly exciting to any fans of the comics. With the Infinity Saga all wrapped up, this could prove to be seed planting for a future big bad.
Doctor Strange could have easily just been another run of the mill origin story (which some believe it is, and that's ok!) but for me, it's so much more. It manages to build on Marvel lore, whilst teasing future story lines by flirting with the Multiverse and the Dark Dimension, all while never losing focus on its very human story. It's a fantastic first outing for one of Marvel's more out there characters and one of my favourites of the whole franchise.
Fred (860 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 27, 2020
Not such a wonder
Contains spoilers, click to show
There are some good scenes in WW84. The beginning scene, followed by the mall scene, both great scenes. The highway scene, the invisible jet scene, very cool. But scenes don't make a movie. Well, they do, but you know what I mean. A few good scenes doesn't make a movie good. The movie is very slow, badly paced & the story, quite frankly, stinks.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Who Runs the World? in Books
Dec 17, 2018
3.5 stars
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What would the world be like if there were no men, only women? Would it be an idyllic, peaceful planet, where compassion and courtesy are more important than money and owning commodities? A world without war, without crime, without weapons? Global agreements with everyone working together and not for personal gain? Endangered animals suddenly thriving in a landscape no longer inhabited by poachers? Perfect, perhaps? <i>Welcome to the Matriarchy.</i>
<i>Who Runs the World?</i> by Virigina Bergin explores the concept of growing up in a world with no men. Sixty years previously, a virus wiped out anyone with a Y chromosome (i.e. men), leaving women to pull together to survive in a dystopian world. River, aged fourteen, has never met a boy, and never expects to – they are as rare as unicorns. Conditioned to believe that men used to be monsters whose only aims were to rape, harm and kill, River believes the world is a faultless society. But, then she meets Mason.
Mason is a similar age to River, but has a distinct difference – he’s a boy. After escaping from a sanctuary – something River never knew existed – Mason has been on the run, seriously ill, but, amazingly, not dying. Despite the initial antagonism between the two characters – after all, they have both been conditioned to believe the opposite sexes are dangerous predators - River and Mason quickly discover that the older women in power have been hiding secrets from the rest of the world.
For six decades, men have lived in sterile sanctuaries, isolated from the deadly virus and the rest of the world. Their purpose is to produce sperm to be used in IVF in order to keep the human population going – obvious when you think about it. Yet, there is clearly an ulterior motive amongst the women in charge, for why else would they keep the male existence secret and teach young girls that men were monsters?
As River and Mason try to come to terms with the hidden truth, events begin to unravel the harmony of the Matriarchy. Perhaps an all female world would not be so perfect after all.
Initially, the tranquil civilisation Bergin creates feels false, a mockery of today’s politics. It is almost like feminism gone too far, claiming that men are the reason for the suffering in today’s world. True, women are still oppressed by their male counterparts, but the generalization that this is a result of ALL men, is a stretch too far. Once the truth about the situation begins to break through, it becomes more acceptable, more realistic even, given the corrupt society we are used to.
But Bergin has a point, how would the world survive if there were no men? For all we know, a deadly virus could rid the world of XYs, leaving women to piece everything back together. What the author is trying to point out is that women CAN be as powerful as men. Women deserve to be part of politics, of decision making, to have equal rights. Despite the initial suggested perfection, Bergin is showing that women are as capable as men, not better or worse.
Targeted at young adults, <i>Who Runs the World?</i> is written in a way that current readers can relate to, but not in ways one may expect. References made by or about the older generation are much more significant than the life and experiences of River, for it is these women that were alive at the beginning of the 21st century. These women were us.
An innovative novel from an up-and-coming British author, <i>Who Runs the World? </i>will make you think about the future as well as open your eyes to the discrimination of the present. It is a very interesting concept with the potential to be followed up with further novels, or left to the reader’s imagination.
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What would the world be like if there were no men, only women? Would it be an idyllic, peaceful planet, where compassion and courtesy are more important than money and owning commodities? A world without war, without crime, without weapons? Global agreements with everyone working together and not for personal gain? Endangered animals suddenly thriving in a landscape no longer inhabited by poachers? Perfect, perhaps? <i>Welcome to the Matriarchy.</i>
<i>Who Runs the World?</i> by Virigina Bergin explores the concept of growing up in a world with no men. Sixty years previously, a virus wiped out anyone with a Y chromosome (i.e. men), leaving women to pull together to survive in a dystopian world. River, aged fourteen, has never met a boy, and never expects to – they are as rare as unicorns. Conditioned to believe that men used to be monsters whose only aims were to rape, harm and kill, River believes the world is a faultless society. But, then she meets Mason.
Mason is a similar age to River, but has a distinct difference – he’s a boy. After escaping from a sanctuary – something River never knew existed – Mason has been on the run, seriously ill, but, amazingly, not dying. Despite the initial antagonism between the two characters – after all, they have both been conditioned to believe the opposite sexes are dangerous predators - River and Mason quickly discover that the older women in power have been hiding secrets from the rest of the world.
For six decades, men have lived in sterile sanctuaries, isolated from the deadly virus and the rest of the world. Their purpose is to produce sperm to be used in IVF in order to keep the human population going – obvious when you think about it. Yet, there is clearly an ulterior motive amongst the women in charge, for why else would they keep the male existence secret and teach young girls that men were monsters?
As River and Mason try to come to terms with the hidden truth, events begin to unravel the harmony of the Matriarchy. Perhaps an all female world would not be so perfect after all.
Initially, the tranquil civilisation Bergin creates feels false, a mockery of today’s politics. It is almost like feminism gone too far, claiming that men are the reason for the suffering in today’s world. True, women are still oppressed by their male counterparts, but the generalization that this is a result of ALL men, is a stretch too far. Once the truth about the situation begins to break through, it becomes more acceptable, more realistic even, given the corrupt society we are used to.
But Bergin has a point, how would the world survive if there were no men? For all we know, a deadly virus could rid the world of XYs, leaving women to piece everything back together. What the author is trying to point out is that women CAN be as powerful as men. Women deserve to be part of politics, of decision making, to have equal rights. Despite the initial suggested perfection, Bergin is showing that women are as capable as men, not better or worse.
Targeted at young adults, <i>Who Runs the World?</i> is written in a way that current readers can relate to, but not in ways one may expect. References made by or about the older generation are much more significant than the life and experiences of River, for it is these women that were alive at the beginning of the 21st century. These women were us.
An innovative novel from an up-and-coming British author, <i>Who Runs the World? </i>will make you think about the future as well as open your eyes to the discrimination of the present. It is a very interesting concept with the potential to be followed up with further novels, or left to the reader’s imagination.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
Oct 6, 2021
Less contained than the first film - we get to see more of the outside world. (2 more)
More monsters.
Cillian Murphy's performance.
Uses jump scares as a crutch (1 more)
Marcus is a bit of a unbearable turd in the film.
Long Time, No Hear
A Quiet Place Part II begins with a flashback chronicling the first day the creatures arrived. It’s also an excuse to allow John Krasinski’s Lee Abbott character to show up again despite dying in the previous film. Day 1 is mostly the scene in the trailer where the creatures are destroying the town and everyone is learning that they attack based on sound. And yes, this scene would have been and is far more effective if you haven’t seen the trailer several times beforehand.
What’s great about this sequel is that it is no longer so contained. The Abbott family is forced to leave their farm and their home and go out into the outside world. But the scariest aspect of all is that the monsters aren’t the most inhuman thing to exist in whatever remains of this desolate world – it’s the human survivors.
The sequel seems to feature far more of the creatures than the original film. It’s not that they weren’t around in the original film, but A Quiet Place Part II gives them a more prominent presence. There seems to be more of them. The film does utilize jump scares a bit more often than it should. They’re cheap tactics to begin with, but become more and more annoying after the first one or two times they’re used in a film.
Marcus Abbott (Noah Jupe) is nearly unbearable until the last ten or so minutes of the film, but it’s also a sensible form of irritation. Marcus lost his little brother and his father in the previous film and, without spoiling too much, doesn’t have a great time in the sequel. He doesn’t want to lose anyone else close to him and is now incredibly attached to the family members he has left. This results in Marcus being too clingy when someone needs to go on a supply run or has an idea that could potentially save everyone.
Cillian Murphy inherits the male lead since Lee Abbott’s exit. Murphy plays a character named Emmett and is actually a friend of the Abbott family. Emmett has lost everyone and everything and has remained relatively close to the Abbott’s farm even after the creatures arrived, but he never came for them. He has shelter and some supplies, but has spent so much time being on his own that he’s forgotten how to sympathize with anyone who isn’t himself. Murphy delivers this gloriously conflicted performance where he seems to be constantly struggling. Emmett often knows the right thing that should be done, but wants to remain hidden. He basically wants to survive over being a compassionate human being.
The formula for A Quiet Place II is intriguing because it plays out like an episodic arc of The Walking Dead. The zombie element is replaced with the creatures as the human characters go on supply runs, look for other survivors, and search for a sanctuary that may or may not exist. Since both A Quiet Place films are PG-13, there’s not much in the gore department. You’re attacked by these creatures and you’re basically just gone. The way the creature’s heads open up like a flower whenever they’re around audio feedback is visually similar to The Last of Us or even Resident Evil.
A Quiet Place Part II ditches the tension and the stealth the first film was known for and introduces more monsters, more action, more characters, and more of a world that’s barely hanging on by a thread. Lee’s oldest kids become they key players here while Emily Blunt takes a backseat. Cillian Murphy proves why he’s one of the most underrated actors working today. Overall, A Quiet Place Part II is an exceptionally entertaining sequel with quality performances and a primary focus on monster mayhem which, as horror and suspense fans, we should all get behind.
What’s great about this sequel is that it is no longer so contained. The Abbott family is forced to leave their farm and their home and go out into the outside world. But the scariest aspect of all is that the monsters aren’t the most inhuman thing to exist in whatever remains of this desolate world – it’s the human survivors.
The sequel seems to feature far more of the creatures than the original film. It’s not that they weren’t around in the original film, but A Quiet Place Part II gives them a more prominent presence. There seems to be more of them. The film does utilize jump scares a bit more often than it should. They’re cheap tactics to begin with, but become more and more annoying after the first one or two times they’re used in a film.
Marcus Abbott (Noah Jupe) is nearly unbearable until the last ten or so minutes of the film, but it’s also a sensible form of irritation. Marcus lost his little brother and his father in the previous film and, without spoiling too much, doesn’t have a great time in the sequel. He doesn’t want to lose anyone else close to him and is now incredibly attached to the family members he has left. This results in Marcus being too clingy when someone needs to go on a supply run or has an idea that could potentially save everyone.
Cillian Murphy inherits the male lead since Lee Abbott’s exit. Murphy plays a character named Emmett and is actually a friend of the Abbott family. Emmett has lost everyone and everything and has remained relatively close to the Abbott’s farm even after the creatures arrived, but he never came for them. He has shelter and some supplies, but has spent so much time being on his own that he’s forgotten how to sympathize with anyone who isn’t himself. Murphy delivers this gloriously conflicted performance where he seems to be constantly struggling. Emmett often knows the right thing that should be done, but wants to remain hidden. He basically wants to survive over being a compassionate human being.
The formula for A Quiet Place II is intriguing because it plays out like an episodic arc of The Walking Dead. The zombie element is replaced with the creatures as the human characters go on supply runs, look for other survivors, and search for a sanctuary that may or may not exist. Since both A Quiet Place films are PG-13, there’s not much in the gore department. You’re attacked by these creatures and you’re basically just gone. The way the creature’s heads open up like a flower whenever they’re around audio feedback is visually similar to The Last of Us or even Resident Evil.
A Quiet Place Part II ditches the tension and the stealth the first film was known for and introduces more monsters, more action, more characters, and more of a world that’s barely hanging on by a thread. Lee’s oldest kids become they key players here while Emily Blunt takes a backseat. Cillian Murphy proves why he’s one of the most underrated actors working today. Overall, A Quiet Place Part II is an exceptionally entertaining sequel with quality performances and a primary focus on monster mayhem which, as horror and suspense fans, we should all get behind.