Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PC version of Evil Dead: The Game in Video Games
Jun 1, 2022
Back in 1981, Director Sam Raimi unleashed the Evil Dead on audiences and in doing so ignited his career as well as that of star Bruce Campbell. The subsequent sequels only further cemented dysfunctional hero Ash Williams into Pop Culture history as did the recent television series which returned the character to eager fans.
Saber Interactive has given fans a chance to play as Ash or several of the characters from the series with Evil Dead: The Game and take the battle to the demonic hordes and plenty of humor, horror, and action along the way.
The game is played from the third-person perspective and online players can enjoy cross-play so that players on all systems can play with one another. In the multiplayer mode, up to four players can team up to get missing pages of a text over a dark and vast map that is littered with demons and can have a player-controlled demon in the mix as well.
Players will be able to arm up by locating guns, knives, swords, and ammunition along the way as well as matches which are key to lighting up areas to keep enemies from advancing. Ammunition is in limited supply so players will have to be selective about combat as blowing away enemies is tons of fun but having to mix it up or run is not always wise when they attack in masses.
The maps are very large and there are vehicles available that are handy in running down enemies and making it to remote areas of the map. Along the way, there are shops, cabins, homes, and other locales where players can find needed objects to survive.
The longer a player operates in the dark or away from other players makes them increase in fear which allows them to be possessed and turn on their fellow players. When a player is low on health they can regain it by drinking cola that is found around the map or by being assisted by a fellow player which is not easy in the midst of combat as helping others can place you at risk.
The goal is to get a legendary dagger and take on the evil leaders which if successful wins the rounds for the players and their XP levels up. Players also have the option for a regular or furious attack as well as special moves which recharge over time.
The solo portion of the game is set in chapters and requires Ash to complete various tasks to advance to the next one. I found this to be very challenging as at times the maps are so dark it is hard to navigate or see properly and without players to help out, it can be a frustrating defeat.
The game has decent graphics and sound and the numerous clips of star Bruce Campbell offering wisdom and quips are very enjoyable and sets the tone for the game well. The attention to detail from the movies is also very enjoyable as players will want to make sure to take a good look around the cabins to get their nostalgia fix.
The game is a fun diversion and fun in groups and gives fans of the series the action and nostalgia they have come to expect. Some may cite a lack of initial depth to the gameplay and maps but I am sure as time goes on and more updates arrive, the game will continue to grow.
For now, Evil Dead: The Game offers enough action, humor, and nostalgia to keep fans happy.
3.5 stars out of 5
Saber Interactive has given fans a chance to play as Ash or several of the characters from the series with Evil Dead: The Game and take the battle to the demonic hordes and plenty of humor, horror, and action along the way.
The game is played from the third-person perspective and online players can enjoy cross-play so that players on all systems can play with one another. In the multiplayer mode, up to four players can team up to get missing pages of a text over a dark and vast map that is littered with demons and can have a player-controlled demon in the mix as well.
Players will be able to arm up by locating guns, knives, swords, and ammunition along the way as well as matches which are key to lighting up areas to keep enemies from advancing. Ammunition is in limited supply so players will have to be selective about combat as blowing away enemies is tons of fun but having to mix it up or run is not always wise when they attack in masses.
The maps are very large and there are vehicles available that are handy in running down enemies and making it to remote areas of the map. Along the way, there are shops, cabins, homes, and other locales where players can find needed objects to survive.
The longer a player operates in the dark or away from other players makes them increase in fear which allows them to be possessed and turn on their fellow players. When a player is low on health they can regain it by drinking cola that is found around the map or by being assisted by a fellow player which is not easy in the midst of combat as helping others can place you at risk.
The goal is to get a legendary dagger and take on the evil leaders which if successful wins the rounds for the players and their XP levels up. Players also have the option for a regular or furious attack as well as special moves which recharge over time.
The solo portion of the game is set in chapters and requires Ash to complete various tasks to advance to the next one. I found this to be very challenging as at times the maps are so dark it is hard to navigate or see properly and without players to help out, it can be a frustrating defeat.
The game has decent graphics and sound and the numerous clips of star Bruce Campbell offering wisdom and quips are very enjoyable and sets the tone for the game well. The attention to detail from the movies is also very enjoyable as players will want to make sure to take a good look around the cabins to get their nostalgia fix.
The game is a fun diversion and fun in groups and gives fans of the series the action and nostalgia they have come to expect. Some may cite a lack of initial depth to the gameplay and maps but I am sure as time goes on and more updates arrive, the game will continue to grow.
For now, Evil Dead: The Game offers enough action, humor, and nostalgia to keep fans happy.
3.5 stars out of 5
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Strange Weather in Books
May 16, 2018
Strange Weather is the first bit of fiction I’ve managed to snare by Joe Hill. I heard some pretty great things about his work, but it’s possible I took those praises a little too much to heart. Rating this book doesn’t come easily. To quote what I told a friend on Twitter, reading Strange Weather felt like an attempt at chewing the gristle on steak. That is, wrong and uncomfortable, but not in a good way. I’ve decided to divvy my review up based on each storry.
SNAPSHOT
“Snapshot,” though a bit lacking in style, is one of two stories in this small collection that I found myself capable of tolerating. I figure it’s because this short tale embodies a sort of Twilight Zone and Night Gallery feel. It read the quickest out of the four stories and I found myself nearly in tears at its conclusion, so the best I can say about it is that I either felt something, or my emotions went bonkers again.
LOADED
The second shorty story in Hill’s collection, “Loaded,” is a bunch of driveling bullshit, for lack of a better word. I’m all about our Second Amendment Rights; I even have a cup that says “Don’t ban guns, ban idiots,” but this story encompasses the stereotypical idea that every gun owner or enthusiast is a batshit crazy blowhard that’s just looking for a reason to go off. I have friends and family that appreciate this machinery, that agree people should under go background and mental wellness checks prior to purchase of a fire arm, but this? This story just adds fuel to a fire that seeks kindling via blame on inanimate objects, rather than the person behind them. The main guy of “Loaded” shows us exactly how restricting gun ownership will fail so hey, better hurry and make it entirely illegal right? Oh, and let’s not get started with the over-saturation of Social Justice Warriorness in this piece. I’m all for equality, but this? This just reeks of extremism in a way that I almost abandoned the book as a whole.
ALOFT
“Aloft” is by far the best in this collection of short stories. An embodiment of the collections title, the main character encounters something unusual while fulfilling a dead friend’s promise and from there, things really take a turn for the bizarre. While I feel Hill gives us a bit too much exposition in this tale, there are many things about it that I feel should be appreciated. For instance, the next time anyone asks me what it’s like to have ulcerative colitis, I’ll probably ask them if they’ve read “Aloft”‘ by Joe Hill, because let’s face it: the torment Aubrey goes through gastrically (is that even a word?) in this story is a pretty damned accurate depiction of the suffering people with Crohn’s and Colitis endure.
RAIN
The final story in Hill’s collection seemed like it could have had a loft of potential. “Rain” further supports the title of the collection when a torrent of crystal nails fall from the sky to impale poor, unexpecting citizens. So what’s the problem then? “Rain” is so fundamentally flawed that it’s just… no. First, Hill is more obsessed with making fun of Trump in this story than the events that occur. This isn’t a bad thing – I absolutely loathe Trump, especially considering his policies may very well shorten my lifespan significantly. “Rain” is more a mockery than the story it could be. At least the twist at the end was fairly amusing, but by that point all I could do is roll my eyes in frustration.
CONCLUSION
Joe Hill’s Strange Weather is probably a poor choice for first time introduction to his work. In fact, it’s almost a deterrent considering it’s the first book by him that I read and I was ecstatic about receiving a review copy. It is with a bit of a heavy heart for the sake of disappointment that I am forced to conclude my review with a largely poor rating. Part of my compliance with FTC guidelines as a reviewer requires that I disclose when I read a free book in exchange for an honest, unbiased review. In this case, I’d like to thank Edelweiss and HarperCollins/William Morrow for this opportunity.
SNAPSHOT
“Snapshot,” though a bit lacking in style, is one of two stories in this small collection that I found myself capable of tolerating. I figure it’s because this short tale embodies a sort of Twilight Zone and Night Gallery feel. It read the quickest out of the four stories and I found myself nearly in tears at its conclusion, so the best I can say about it is that I either felt something, or my emotions went bonkers again.
LOADED
The second shorty story in Hill’s collection, “Loaded,” is a bunch of driveling bullshit, for lack of a better word. I’m all about our Second Amendment Rights; I even have a cup that says “Don’t ban guns, ban idiots,” but this story encompasses the stereotypical idea that every gun owner or enthusiast is a batshit crazy blowhard that’s just looking for a reason to go off. I have friends and family that appreciate this machinery, that agree people should under go background and mental wellness checks prior to purchase of a fire arm, but this? This story just adds fuel to a fire that seeks kindling via blame on inanimate objects, rather than the person behind them. The main guy of “Loaded” shows us exactly how restricting gun ownership will fail so hey, better hurry and make it entirely illegal right? Oh, and let’s not get started with the over-saturation of Social Justice Warriorness in this piece. I’m all for equality, but this? This just reeks of extremism in a way that I almost abandoned the book as a whole.
ALOFT
“Aloft” is by far the best in this collection of short stories. An embodiment of the collections title, the main character encounters something unusual while fulfilling a dead friend’s promise and from there, things really take a turn for the bizarre. While I feel Hill gives us a bit too much exposition in this tale, there are many things about it that I feel should be appreciated. For instance, the next time anyone asks me what it’s like to have ulcerative colitis, I’ll probably ask them if they’ve read “Aloft”‘ by Joe Hill, because let’s face it: the torment Aubrey goes through gastrically (is that even a word?) in this story is a pretty damned accurate depiction of the suffering people with Crohn’s and Colitis endure.
RAIN
The final story in Hill’s collection seemed like it could have had a loft of potential. “Rain” further supports the title of the collection when a torrent of crystal nails fall from the sky to impale poor, unexpecting citizens. So what’s the problem then? “Rain” is so fundamentally flawed that it’s just… no. First, Hill is more obsessed with making fun of Trump in this story than the events that occur. This isn’t a bad thing – I absolutely loathe Trump, especially considering his policies may very well shorten my lifespan significantly. “Rain” is more a mockery than the story it could be. At least the twist at the end was fairly amusing, but by that point all I could do is roll my eyes in frustration.
CONCLUSION
Joe Hill’s Strange Weather is probably a poor choice for first time introduction to his work. In fact, it’s almost a deterrent considering it’s the first book by him that I read and I was ecstatic about receiving a review copy. It is with a bit of a heavy heart for the sake of disappointment that I am forced to conclude my review with a largely poor rating. Part of my compliance with FTC guidelines as a reviewer requires that I disclose when I read a free book in exchange for an honest, unbiased review. In this case, I’d like to thank Edelweiss and HarperCollins/William Morrow for this opportunity.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Adapting Stephen King stories for the screen has long been a difficult problem for Hollywood. For every “Misery” and “The Shawshank Redemption”, there are many others such as “The Mangler”, “Cell”, “and Graveyard Shift” and many more where things did not go as planned.
The big issue is that King often creates detailed characters with complex backstories and puts then in fully developed worlds that despite their supernatural nature, often are easy for readers to relate to.
Also as any reader of his books knows, King is not one to spare the paper and his books can be very lengthy offerings. This is an issue for Hollywood as they are forced to condense a 400-800 page plus story in many cases to fewer than two hours of screen time. The solution has been to try television movies such as “The Langoliers”, “The Tommyknockers”, “The Stand”, and “It”. The problem with this format is that while spreading the story over multiple nights allows more time for the story, they gore and adult content which is often the core of the story has to be greatly watered down.
Which brings us to “The Dark Tower”, an adaptation of King’s largest offering as the series covers seven books and a novella, not to mention a Prequel comic and more. The series rolled out from 1982-2004 with King often saying that he might never finish the series. Fortunately for fans he released three books from 2003-2004 and was able to declare the story told.
The story tells of a world like ours, but different that has “moved on”. It is a dying world where Roland (Idris Elba), is pursuing a wizard named Walter (Matthew McConaughey), who is responsible for laying waste the world and killing all that come into Roland’s life. The books follow his unrelenting chase of The Man in Black over countless years and how he has become a cold and driven individual who thinks nothing of using people to get his revenge.
Roland is the last of the “Gunslingers”, a Knight like group who protected the world and who used guns that were rare in their world to keep the peace. Roland is highly skilled and unlike his now dead companions, is impervious to the magic of Walter which has allowed him to remain alive and continue his quest.
The Man in Black is fixated on destroying the Dark Tower, which protects the many worlds in the universe from the outside evils that look to destroy it. Along with a young boy from Earth named Jake (Tom Taylor), Roland must find a way to save the universe and exact his revenge.
The film keeps the conflict between Roland and The Man in Black but greatly condenses the story as it includes references to things in the first two books but omits much of the backstory and plot of the novels to tell what I would call a story that was inspired by, but not based on the books.
This is at the core the biggest issue with the film. I have read the books and while I wanted an adaptation that was closer to them, I did find myself enjoying the film more than I expected to. The leads were very good and even though they had a very watered down script to work with, they did a good job and the finale does have some nice visuals and action to it.
People I know who have read the books have naturally been very disappointed with the film but those who have not read the books have mentioned that they enjoyed the film and accepted it as a fun bit of escapist adventure.
There has been talk of a television series that would focus more on the third book onward which hopefully would include how Roland gained new followers from our world who were trained to be future Gunslingers. That remains to be seen as the success of the film will likely hold the key. I hope we do get to see it as there are countless stories and characters yet to tell in this universe and I think fans deserve to see them as King wrote them.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/03/the-dark-tower/
The big issue is that King often creates detailed characters with complex backstories and puts then in fully developed worlds that despite their supernatural nature, often are easy for readers to relate to.
Also as any reader of his books knows, King is not one to spare the paper and his books can be very lengthy offerings. This is an issue for Hollywood as they are forced to condense a 400-800 page plus story in many cases to fewer than two hours of screen time. The solution has been to try television movies such as “The Langoliers”, “The Tommyknockers”, “The Stand”, and “It”. The problem with this format is that while spreading the story over multiple nights allows more time for the story, they gore and adult content which is often the core of the story has to be greatly watered down.
Which brings us to “The Dark Tower”, an adaptation of King’s largest offering as the series covers seven books and a novella, not to mention a Prequel comic and more. The series rolled out from 1982-2004 with King often saying that he might never finish the series. Fortunately for fans he released three books from 2003-2004 and was able to declare the story told.
The story tells of a world like ours, but different that has “moved on”. It is a dying world where Roland (Idris Elba), is pursuing a wizard named Walter (Matthew McConaughey), who is responsible for laying waste the world and killing all that come into Roland’s life. The books follow his unrelenting chase of The Man in Black over countless years and how he has become a cold and driven individual who thinks nothing of using people to get his revenge.
Roland is the last of the “Gunslingers”, a Knight like group who protected the world and who used guns that were rare in their world to keep the peace. Roland is highly skilled and unlike his now dead companions, is impervious to the magic of Walter which has allowed him to remain alive and continue his quest.
The Man in Black is fixated on destroying the Dark Tower, which protects the many worlds in the universe from the outside evils that look to destroy it. Along with a young boy from Earth named Jake (Tom Taylor), Roland must find a way to save the universe and exact his revenge.
The film keeps the conflict between Roland and The Man in Black but greatly condenses the story as it includes references to things in the first two books but omits much of the backstory and plot of the novels to tell what I would call a story that was inspired by, but not based on the books.
This is at the core the biggest issue with the film. I have read the books and while I wanted an adaptation that was closer to them, I did find myself enjoying the film more than I expected to. The leads were very good and even though they had a very watered down script to work with, they did a good job and the finale does have some nice visuals and action to it.
People I know who have read the books have naturally been very disappointed with the film but those who have not read the books have mentioned that they enjoyed the film and accepted it as a fun bit of escapist adventure.
There has been talk of a television series that would focus more on the third book onward which hopefully would include how Roland gained new followers from our world who were trained to be future Gunslingers. That remains to be seen as the success of the film will likely hold the key. I hope we do get to see it as there are countless stories and characters yet to tell in this universe and I think fans deserve to see them as King wrote them.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/03/the-dark-tower/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 12 Years a Slave (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Watching how Solomon struggles to just survive let alone becoming free again. We see how different men who have slaves treat them, some well some badly. The story shows the tragic truth about how slaves were treated and even though this story get a happy ending of freedom, most never got that chance, with this still happening in the modern world it should make everyone be thankful for the fact they are free now. The story is an inspiration story of survival and not giving up hope. (10/10)
Actor Reviews
Chiwetel Ejiofor: Solomon kidnapped and sold into slavery, not resting on the fact he will never escape he tries over the 12 years to find a way to get his own freedom before finally finding someone to trust enough. Chiwetel is brilliant in the role and fully deserved his BAFTA for best actor. (10/10)
solomon
Michael Fassbender: Edwin Epps the drunken plantation owner who abuses his slaves for his own pleasure, enforced strict rules and taking all the hope out of his slaves. Great performance from Fassbender playing a character that is driven to be hated. (9/10)
fassbender
REPORT THIS AD
Lupita Nyong’o: Patsey one of the slaves on Epps’s plantation who is his favourite as she is the best picker and also he favourite for his sexual pleasures. Great performance, showing that the hope had been taken from some of the slaves. (10/10)
lupita
Brad Pitt: Bass a free roaming labourer who doesn’t turn up to late in the film, becomes the last chance for Solomon. Only a small role but does a good job.(8/10)
pitt
Paul Dano: Tibeats, Ford’s evil slaver runner who pushes all of them to limits they shouldn’t have to go, he thinks he is better than all of the slaves, but Solomon teaches him a thing or too. Good performance from Dano showing he can fit into any role with ease. (8/10)
dano
Paul Giamatti: Freeman the slave sales man who put them all up for show so that the highest bidder will purchase them. Only a small role but affectively showing how the slavery sales were made to be glamorous for what they are doing. (7/10)
paul
REPORT THIS AD
Benedict Cumberbatch: Ford a good man who looks after his slaves, Ford purchases Solomon and is willing to listen to Solomon’s ideas to improve his work. Forced to sell on Solomon, but always looked after them all fair. Good supporting performance and his character reflexes how evil Epps is.(8/10)
benedict
Sarah Paulson: Mistress Epps the wife of Edwin, who has a dislike for Patsey but an almost sympatric side to the rest of the slaves. Good performance and the one scene with Patsey is really stand out. (9/10)
mistress epps
Director Review: Steve McQueen – Brilliant direction to tell such an amazing story of one man’s journey. (10/10)
Biography: Amazing look at how Solomon survived his ordeal. (10/10)
Drama: Stunning look at something that could have been all guns, blood and gore, but focuses on the emotions involved with the people. (10/10)
History: Good look at how people were treated during the slave times. (10/10)
Settings: Beautiful settings used to create the story. (10/10)
Suggestion: This really should be watched by all, but I do feel the more casual film fan may find it hard to watch. (Watch)
Best Part: Chiwetel Performance.
Worst Part: Some of the punishment scenes are hard to watch.
Favourite Quote: Solomon ‘I will not fall into despair! I will keep myself hardy until freedom is opportune!’
Believability: Based on Solomon’s true story. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
REPORT THIS AD
Oscar Chances: Won 3 Oscars.
Box Office: $178,413,838
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 13 Minutes
Tagline: The extraordinary true story of Solomon Northup.
Overall: Stunning Story
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/05/12/12-years-a-slave-2013/
Actor Reviews
Chiwetel Ejiofor: Solomon kidnapped and sold into slavery, not resting on the fact he will never escape he tries over the 12 years to find a way to get his own freedom before finally finding someone to trust enough. Chiwetel is brilliant in the role and fully deserved his BAFTA for best actor. (10/10)
solomon
Michael Fassbender: Edwin Epps the drunken plantation owner who abuses his slaves for his own pleasure, enforced strict rules and taking all the hope out of his slaves. Great performance from Fassbender playing a character that is driven to be hated. (9/10)
fassbender
REPORT THIS AD
Lupita Nyong’o: Patsey one of the slaves on Epps’s plantation who is his favourite as she is the best picker and also he favourite for his sexual pleasures. Great performance, showing that the hope had been taken from some of the slaves. (10/10)
lupita
Brad Pitt: Bass a free roaming labourer who doesn’t turn up to late in the film, becomes the last chance for Solomon. Only a small role but does a good job.(8/10)
pitt
Paul Dano: Tibeats, Ford’s evil slaver runner who pushes all of them to limits they shouldn’t have to go, he thinks he is better than all of the slaves, but Solomon teaches him a thing or too. Good performance from Dano showing he can fit into any role with ease. (8/10)
dano
Paul Giamatti: Freeman the slave sales man who put them all up for show so that the highest bidder will purchase them. Only a small role but affectively showing how the slavery sales were made to be glamorous for what they are doing. (7/10)
paul
REPORT THIS AD
Benedict Cumberbatch: Ford a good man who looks after his slaves, Ford purchases Solomon and is willing to listen to Solomon’s ideas to improve his work. Forced to sell on Solomon, but always looked after them all fair. Good supporting performance and his character reflexes how evil Epps is.(8/10)
benedict
Sarah Paulson: Mistress Epps the wife of Edwin, who has a dislike for Patsey but an almost sympatric side to the rest of the slaves. Good performance and the one scene with Patsey is really stand out. (9/10)
mistress epps
Director Review: Steve McQueen – Brilliant direction to tell such an amazing story of one man’s journey. (10/10)
Biography: Amazing look at how Solomon survived his ordeal. (10/10)
Drama: Stunning look at something that could have been all guns, blood and gore, but focuses on the emotions involved with the people. (10/10)
History: Good look at how people were treated during the slave times. (10/10)
Settings: Beautiful settings used to create the story. (10/10)
Suggestion: This really should be watched by all, but I do feel the more casual film fan may find it hard to watch. (Watch)
Best Part: Chiwetel Performance.
Worst Part: Some of the punishment scenes are hard to watch.
Favourite Quote: Solomon ‘I will not fall into despair! I will keep myself hardy until freedom is opportune!’
Believability: Based on Solomon’s true story. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
REPORT THIS AD
Oscar Chances: Won 3 Oscars.
Box Office: $178,413,838
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 13 Minutes
Tagline: The extraordinary true story of Solomon Northup.
Overall: Stunning Story
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/05/12/12-years-a-slave-2013/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alone in the Dark (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: I am going to first look at this only as a story, no opinions on the CGI or casting choices. If you were to look at the story as a solo idea you get a solid action horror. Now I hear people going ‘no its just crap’ so let’s look at the details. First off we have an idea of scientific experiment on children to create sleepers, but something goes wrong so we don’t see why it happened until more discoveries in the future. Then we have a search for hidden treasures of a lost ancient people. Add in a paranormal investigator, a secret government paranormal investigating team and the search for a truth. Now looking at those factors we should have a good story not special but enjoyable. Now with terrible casting decisions, awful CGI and a script that could have been written but a child everything goes south fast. As an idea for a story this is good, but as an execution of a story it’s bad. (5/10)
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Expendables (2010) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Expendables starts as we get to see Barney Ross (Stallone) and his team Lee (Statham), Yin (Li), Gunner (Lundgren), Toll (Couture) and Hale (Crews) eliminate a threat, to show just how capable they are at dealing with international threats.
Once home Barney is given a new assignment, to take out General Garza (Zayas) and James Munroe (Roberts) who are controlling an asset the government require, this soon turns into the five-man army taking on a full army.
Thoughts on The Expendables
Characters – Barney Ross is the leader of the mercenaries, he does play by a rule book, which sees him needing make a difficult decision with one of his team. He takes the latest job once he realizes that sometimes the impossible can make a big difference being a better all-around combat asset. Lee Christmas is Barney’s second in command, the one that Barney will turn to most, during this story he finds himself having lady problems and shows a man what will happen if you beat one up, he is also the knife expert on the team. Yin is the smallest member of the team, he is the martial artist of the team and is always worried about enough money for his family. Gunner is the member of the team which gets kicked out because he wants too much brutality in the missions, he has a drug problem which needs to be cleaned up before he could ever be considered back on the team. Eric Roberts is the businessman that has taken over the island, he is paying for everything even if it makes enemies out of the locals, he will strike fear into them with fear. Paine is the strongest member of Munroe’s team, he has been waiting for a challenge which Barney and his team will offer him.
Performances – This movie does have an all-star cast of action heroes, Sylvester Stallone does take centre stage here and does what he knows how to be, a lead action star, Jason Statham does this too, with a little more subtle side to his outside the business performance. These two both get the best action moments in the film. Jet Li does well with the action, but gets wasted outside of these moments, while Dolph Lundgren does what he can with a character that does have plenty more to offer to this film. Eric Roberts fits the generic villainous role, he doesn’t get enough time to make his character as memorable as he could have been.
Story – The story follows a group of mercenaries that are hired to solve the militant control of a small island in the Gulf of Mexico. When it comes to the story, we don’t need too much, this film is more designed to show of the action stars of the movie industry. By keeping everything on the simple side we get an enjoyable story to see unfold, though it would have been nice to get some sort of character development about the crew. This story is easy to watch without ever needing to test us.
Action/Adventure – The action in the film is wildly over the top with a mix of guns, knives and hand to hand combat, all you would want from the cast we have here. The adventure side of the film does take our crew to a new island that they haven’t heard of before to make the events of the film happen.
Settings – The film mixes the home that the men have back in America with the island that needs freeing, showing how they can and will adapt to any landscape they are placed in.
Scene of the Movie – Fly by.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t get enough Jet Li.
Final Thoughts – This is one movie that is purely for the action fans, it goes well over the top and deliveries you favourite action stars doing what they do best, shooting gun and fighting.
Overall: Fun Filled Action Film.
Once home Barney is given a new assignment, to take out General Garza (Zayas) and James Munroe (Roberts) who are controlling an asset the government require, this soon turns into the five-man army taking on a full army.
Thoughts on The Expendables
Characters – Barney Ross is the leader of the mercenaries, he does play by a rule book, which sees him needing make a difficult decision with one of his team. He takes the latest job once he realizes that sometimes the impossible can make a big difference being a better all-around combat asset. Lee Christmas is Barney’s second in command, the one that Barney will turn to most, during this story he finds himself having lady problems and shows a man what will happen if you beat one up, he is also the knife expert on the team. Yin is the smallest member of the team, he is the martial artist of the team and is always worried about enough money for his family. Gunner is the member of the team which gets kicked out because he wants too much brutality in the missions, he has a drug problem which needs to be cleaned up before he could ever be considered back on the team. Eric Roberts is the businessman that has taken over the island, he is paying for everything even if it makes enemies out of the locals, he will strike fear into them with fear. Paine is the strongest member of Munroe’s team, he has been waiting for a challenge which Barney and his team will offer him.
Performances – This movie does have an all-star cast of action heroes, Sylvester Stallone does take centre stage here and does what he knows how to be, a lead action star, Jason Statham does this too, with a little more subtle side to his outside the business performance. These two both get the best action moments in the film. Jet Li does well with the action, but gets wasted outside of these moments, while Dolph Lundgren does what he can with a character that does have plenty more to offer to this film. Eric Roberts fits the generic villainous role, he doesn’t get enough time to make his character as memorable as he could have been.
Story – The story follows a group of mercenaries that are hired to solve the militant control of a small island in the Gulf of Mexico. When it comes to the story, we don’t need too much, this film is more designed to show of the action stars of the movie industry. By keeping everything on the simple side we get an enjoyable story to see unfold, though it would have been nice to get some sort of character development about the crew. This story is easy to watch without ever needing to test us.
Action/Adventure – The action in the film is wildly over the top with a mix of guns, knives and hand to hand combat, all you would want from the cast we have here. The adventure side of the film does take our crew to a new island that they haven’t heard of before to make the events of the film happen.
Settings – The film mixes the home that the men have back in America with the island that needs freeing, showing how they can and will adapt to any landscape they are placed in.
Scene of the Movie – Fly by.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t get enough Jet Li.
Final Thoughts – This is one movie that is purely for the action fans, it goes well over the top and deliveries you favourite action stars doing what they do best, shooting gun and fighting.
Overall: Fun Filled Action Film.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019
Great Introspection On What it Means to Be Human
Thirty years after the events of the first movie, Blade Runner 2049 follows the story of replicant K (Ryan Gosling) who unearths a secret that could rock the world to its core. I remember watching this for the first time and scoring it high 90’s. While I still think it’s a damn good movie, I feel it falls just out of Masterpiece range.
Acting: 10
Gosling was stellar in his performance as K. Replicants walk the line of being human, but robotic at the same time. In some cases Gosling provides responses that are straight out of the mouth of a program while there are some scenes that require him to capture raw emotion, both unexpected and welcomed by me as a viewer. There were some other memorable performances as well, particularly by Sylvia Hoeks in her role as Luv. I’ll be honest, she frightened the hell out of me, but in a good way. She was calculated and controlled, but you could always sense a rage waiting to surface. I love what she did with this character.
Beginning: 10
The opening scene of this movie sees K tracking down a replicant that’s been trying to fly under the radar. The tension is built slowly before it bubbles over. In the climax of this scene, we get a taste of what is to come for the rest of the movie. That’s what beginnings are all about: Leave us wanting more!
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
While the entire film as a whole may not qualify as a masterpiece, the visuals and cinematography most certainly are. Throughout the movie, you get a chique futuristic feel that’s also dreary and dank at the same time. It’s like you’re watching two worlds collide. I love their play on robotics and weaponry here as well, definitely a step up from the first film.
Conflict: 10
It’s not just about the action here, but also K unravelling a mystery before our eyes. You want him to get to the bottom of everything going on and you’re taken on a wild ride along the way. Between the shootouts with hi-tech guns and the hand-to-hand fights, there is more than enough to keep you entertained.
My favorite scene in particular occurs when K and Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) meet for the first time and square off. They are in some kind of concert hall where holograms are performing. Both are relying on the singing of the holograms to improve their striking position. It really is fun to watch.
Entertainment Value: 9
It doesn’t take you long into this movie to realize you’re watching something special. The time and energy that went into the creation of this movie shows up on screen. Yes, it could have been shortened, but I still had a great experience.
Memorability: 10
There is a scene that sticks out in my head where replicant creator Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) is looking over one of his creations. It’s unsettling to put it lightly and you feel like it’s just an average monologue…until it’s not. There are a number of scenes just like this that press on my brain. I also loved the continued exploration from the last movie of what it means to be human.
Pace: 8
I do appreciate that the story took its time to unfold. However, I do feel like it could have been a smidge faster in spots. There were a few moments where I was thinking, “Man, I got things to do! Let’s go!” Mostly forgivable save for a few instances.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 1
Without giving anything away, I will just say that this is my least favorite part of the movie. To have started so strong only to end like this? Not impressed. I wanted more for K is all I will say.
Overall: 88
There’s nothing like good sci-fi when done well. Blade Runner 2049 will take you on highs and lows while giving you a visual feast in the process. I was not disappointed in the least and you won’t be either.
Acting: 10
Gosling was stellar in his performance as K. Replicants walk the line of being human, but robotic at the same time. In some cases Gosling provides responses that are straight out of the mouth of a program while there are some scenes that require him to capture raw emotion, both unexpected and welcomed by me as a viewer. There were some other memorable performances as well, particularly by Sylvia Hoeks in her role as Luv. I’ll be honest, she frightened the hell out of me, but in a good way. She was calculated and controlled, but you could always sense a rage waiting to surface. I love what she did with this character.
Beginning: 10
The opening scene of this movie sees K tracking down a replicant that’s been trying to fly under the radar. The tension is built slowly before it bubbles over. In the climax of this scene, we get a taste of what is to come for the rest of the movie. That’s what beginnings are all about: Leave us wanting more!
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
While the entire film as a whole may not qualify as a masterpiece, the visuals and cinematography most certainly are. Throughout the movie, you get a chique futuristic feel that’s also dreary and dank at the same time. It’s like you’re watching two worlds collide. I love their play on robotics and weaponry here as well, definitely a step up from the first film.
Conflict: 10
It’s not just about the action here, but also K unravelling a mystery before our eyes. You want him to get to the bottom of everything going on and you’re taken on a wild ride along the way. Between the shootouts with hi-tech guns and the hand-to-hand fights, there is more than enough to keep you entertained.
My favorite scene in particular occurs when K and Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) meet for the first time and square off. They are in some kind of concert hall where holograms are performing. Both are relying on the singing of the holograms to improve their striking position. It really is fun to watch.
Entertainment Value: 9
It doesn’t take you long into this movie to realize you’re watching something special. The time and energy that went into the creation of this movie shows up on screen. Yes, it could have been shortened, but I still had a great experience.
Memorability: 10
There is a scene that sticks out in my head where replicant creator Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) is looking over one of his creations. It’s unsettling to put it lightly and you feel like it’s just an average monologue…until it’s not. There are a number of scenes just like this that press on my brain. I also loved the continued exploration from the last movie of what it means to be human.
Pace: 8
I do appreciate that the story took its time to unfold. However, I do feel like it could have been a smidge faster in spots. There were a few moments where I was thinking, “Man, I got things to do! Let’s go!” Mostly forgivable save for a few instances.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 1
Without giving anything away, I will just say that this is my least favorite part of the movie. To have started so strong only to end like this? Not impressed. I wanted more for K is all I will say.
Overall: 88
There’s nothing like good sci-fi when done well. Blade Runner 2049 will take you on highs and lows while giving you a visual feast in the process. I was not disappointed in the least and you won’t be either.
Illeana Douglas recommended Easy Rider (1969) in Movies (curated)
Electric Guitar Lessons - Ultimate Guide
Music and Education
App
This app has over 300 easy to follow video lessons on how to play the Electric Guitar including...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
The Star Wars Story that nobody asked for, but was is a story worth telling?
In short, NO.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.