Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The fourth chapter in the phenomenally popular Mission Impossible series has arrived in theaters and jump starts the franchise with a dynamic ensemble cast and a bold mix of action and adventure with a touch of comedy thrown in.
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol opens with a daring escape from a Russian prison followed shortly thereafter by an infiltration of the Kremlin and subsequent explosion on the famed Russian landmark.
Tom Cruise returns as agent Ethan Hunt and is joined by Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, and Paula Patton. Shortly after the explosion at the Kremlin, tensions between the United States and Russia are at an all-time high. As a result, the president initiates Ghost Protocol, which effectively shuts down the Impossible Mission Force and eliminates many of their resources. As a result, Ethan and his team must take on an unsanctioned mission that will take them from Russia to Dubai to Mumbai in a race against time to not only clear the IMF from being blamed for the bombing, but to stop a deranged criminal from using stolen Russian launch codes to unleash a nuclear strike upon America.
Ethan and his team bring all manner of weapons and technology to bear against the enemy and while the action sequences are intense and the best in the series to date, they don’t overshadow the human element of the film as each character has a back story which helped endear them to the audience. Unlike previous films in the series, the plot is not as convoluted and hard to follow and director Brad Bird, making his live-action directing debut, does a fantastic job of pacing the film, never once letting it drag or become boring.
Pegg and Renner are fantastic additions to the series as Renner brings a sense of humanity to his role as analyst Brandt. Pegg gets a share of comedic lines and moments but is not there simply to provide comic relief, convincingly deadly serious when the action becomes hot and heavy. Patton holds her own with the guys and proves she is more than just a pretty face as her fight scene in a high-rise with an assassin is as intense as any action fan could want with a fantastic finale.
Cruise goes all-out in his performance and performs many of the film’s stunts himself, quite a few of them shriek-inducing, judging by the reaction of the ladies in the audience. While Ethan spends a lot of time running in the film, he also spends a lot of time fighting and it was very nice to see him share some of the responsibility for the film’s action scenes with his ensemble cast. I believe that the ensemble works so well that the studio should keep this team together for future installments in the series. The team has a winning formula that reinvigorates the series giving us what I believe is the best film in the series to date.
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol opens with a daring escape from a Russian prison followed shortly thereafter by an infiltration of the Kremlin and subsequent explosion on the famed Russian landmark.
Tom Cruise returns as agent Ethan Hunt and is joined by Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, and Paula Patton. Shortly after the explosion at the Kremlin, tensions between the United States and Russia are at an all-time high. As a result, the president initiates Ghost Protocol, which effectively shuts down the Impossible Mission Force and eliminates many of their resources. As a result, Ethan and his team must take on an unsanctioned mission that will take them from Russia to Dubai to Mumbai in a race against time to not only clear the IMF from being blamed for the bombing, but to stop a deranged criminal from using stolen Russian launch codes to unleash a nuclear strike upon America.
Ethan and his team bring all manner of weapons and technology to bear against the enemy and while the action sequences are intense and the best in the series to date, they don’t overshadow the human element of the film as each character has a back story which helped endear them to the audience. Unlike previous films in the series, the plot is not as convoluted and hard to follow and director Brad Bird, making his live-action directing debut, does a fantastic job of pacing the film, never once letting it drag or become boring.
Pegg and Renner are fantastic additions to the series as Renner brings a sense of humanity to his role as analyst Brandt. Pegg gets a share of comedic lines and moments but is not there simply to provide comic relief, convincingly deadly serious when the action becomes hot and heavy. Patton holds her own with the guys and proves she is more than just a pretty face as her fight scene in a high-rise with an assassin is as intense as any action fan could want with a fantastic finale.
Cruise goes all-out in his performance and performs many of the film’s stunts himself, quite a few of them shriek-inducing, judging by the reaction of the ladies in the audience. While Ethan spends a lot of time running in the film, he also spends a lot of time fighting and it was very nice to see him share some of the responsibility for the film’s action scenes with his ensemble cast. I believe that the ensemble works so well that the studio should keep this team together for future installments in the series. The team has a winning formula that reinvigorates the series giving us what I believe is the best film in the series to date.
Overkill 3
Games and Entertainment
App
8 environments with more than 60 battlefields, 4 game modes and over 30 guns to shoot your way...
ClareR (5849 KP) rated The Warehouse in Books
Sep 25, 2019
A brilliant, if disturbing, dystopian thriller!
What will the future hold for us, with climate change becoming ever more a part of our lives, capitalism taking over every part of society and big business pushing out the small, local businesses? Well, The Warehouse looks at all of these things in a near-future dystopian thriller.
The Cloud rules pretty much everything. We learn of its genesis from one of the narrators: Gibson. He is the founder of The Cloud, and built the business up from nothing. He is nearing the end of his life, and he has decided to blog during his remaining weeks as he visits all of The Cloud installations in the US.
Paxton used to have his own small business, but after The Cloud takes his product and sells it at a much cheaper price, his company folds. He finds himself without a job, home and money. So he decides to go and work for Cloud. Those who work there, live on site in small apartments. The children of workers are educated at Cloud schools, workers are entertained on site, and there are restaurants, shops and cinemas - all within the Cloud ‘town’. There is no reason to ever leave these huge towns (it reminded me of the Victorian models of towns built around coal mines or factories- the owners would provide accommodation near to work, so that there would be no excuse not to go to work. If you lost your job, you lost your home.).
Zinnia also gets a job at Cloud at the same time as Paxton, but she has an ulterior motive for being there. She’s an undercover spy for a competitor, and she has been given a job to do by someone that she’s never met.
Capitalism does not do well out of this book. It’s like the author has taken the idea of capitalism to its furthest point to show us what will happen if we and our governments continue to give big business the freedoms and money that we do. Every aspect of the workers lives is monitored through a wristband that they must wear at all times. In my e was no way that these people could ever imagine that they were free. They weren’t. Accidents at work were brushed under the carpet, as were assaults (sexual and physical), and drug dealing. Everything was done to the advantage of The Cloud.
I really enjoyed this, and it not only entertained, it gave me food for thought. What would our world be like bereft of humanity and morality? Well actually, I think it would be pretty much like living in The Cloud facility! And the thing is, it’s all perfectly plausible! This is a great read.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Bantam Press for my copy of this book to read and review.
The Cloud rules pretty much everything. We learn of its genesis from one of the narrators: Gibson. He is the founder of The Cloud, and built the business up from nothing. He is nearing the end of his life, and he has decided to blog during his remaining weeks as he visits all of The Cloud installations in the US.
Paxton used to have his own small business, but after The Cloud takes his product and sells it at a much cheaper price, his company folds. He finds himself without a job, home and money. So he decides to go and work for Cloud. Those who work there, live on site in small apartments. The children of workers are educated at Cloud schools, workers are entertained on site, and there are restaurants, shops and cinemas - all within the Cloud ‘town’. There is no reason to ever leave these huge towns (it reminded me of the Victorian models of towns built around coal mines or factories- the owners would provide accommodation near to work, so that there would be no excuse not to go to work. If you lost your job, you lost your home.).
Zinnia also gets a job at Cloud at the same time as Paxton, but she has an ulterior motive for being there. She’s an undercover spy for a competitor, and she has been given a job to do by someone that she’s never met.
Capitalism does not do well out of this book. It’s like the author has taken the idea of capitalism to its furthest point to show us what will happen if we and our governments continue to give big business the freedoms and money that we do. Every aspect of the workers lives is monitored through a wristband that they must wear at all times. In my e was no way that these people could ever imagine that they were free. They weren’t. Accidents at work were brushed under the carpet, as were assaults (sexual and physical), and drug dealing. Everything was done to the advantage of The Cloud.
I really enjoyed this, and it not only entertained, it gave me food for thought. What would our world be like bereft of humanity and morality? Well actually, I think it would be pretty much like living in The Cloud facility! And the thing is, it’s all perfectly plausible! This is a great read.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Bantam Press for my copy of this book to read and review.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Whenever I was asked who my favorite Disney prince was, I’d answer, without hesitation, “The Beast.”
Friends would look at me askance and ask, “The Beast? Really?”
And I’d simply reply, “Have you not seen his library?”
I also claim Belle as my favorite Disney princess. As a bookworm, Beauty and the Beast gave me a princess I could relate to. Sure, I had just graduated from high school the year before the animated film – not really the demographic Disney was catering to. But when I first watched Belle’s introductory scene, as she made her way through the village with her nose buried in a book while the townfolk sang of her “odd” behavior, I felt l the corners of my lips rise on their own, in a smile of recognition.
Sure, it also may have been because of the clever lyrics of the late Howard Ashman and the wondrous melodies of Alan Menken in that first song alone, but Belle quickly me over not only with her joy for stories and spirit of adventure, but also with her brave spirit.
Beauty and the Beast is a fairy tale told many times over and Disney’s live-action version follows the animated classic closely with some variation and additional scenes and few more songs. Like the animated film, it’s sweepingly romantic and just as enchanting. What the audience may struggle with is that Emma Watson’s Belle is not as…well, animated as the animated Belle. She brings a solemnity to the role, and as singing talent goes, while she is no Paige O’Hara, she can sing.
Luke Evans makes a menacingly handsome Gaston and his big number, with his sidekick LeFou (Josh Gad) is an entertaining high point that cements Gaston’s position as my favorite villain. Dan Stevens brought a bit more humanity to Beast, and with a heartbreaking song of his own, his despair is more keenly felt in this movie. But I have to admit, I prefer Josh Groban’s version of Beast’s solo, which you do get to hear if you sit through the credits.
Lumière the candelabra and Cogsworth the clock were brought to life with great voice work Ewan McGregor and Ian McKellen, respectively. Emma Thompson voiced Mrs. Potts perfectly. I don’t know if it was her voice, the theme song or the ballroom dance scene that provoked an overwhelming sense of nostalgia, but the captivating combination literally brought tears to my eyes. Kevin Kline, who played Belle’s father, Maurice, Stanley Tucci, and Broadway great Audra McDonald round out a solid supporting cast.
As a huge fan of the 1991 Beauty and the Beast, I didn’t believe a live-action version could improve on the beloved, timeless classic. But just like with the animated film, it was truly the songs that made the movie, and the music does it again for the live-action film, making it a memorable, magical treat for young and old alike.
Friends would look at me askance and ask, “The Beast? Really?”
And I’d simply reply, “Have you not seen his library?”
I also claim Belle as my favorite Disney princess. As a bookworm, Beauty and the Beast gave me a princess I could relate to. Sure, I had just graduated from high school the year before the animated film – not really the demographic Disney was catering to. But when I first watched Belle’s introductory scene, as she made her way through the village with her nose buried in a book while the townfolk sang of her “odd” behavior, I felt l the corners of my lips rise on their own, in a smile of recognition.
Sure, it also may have been because of the clever lyrics of the late Howard Ashman and the wondrous melodies of Alan Menken in that first song alone, but Belle quickly me over not only with her joy for stories and spirit of adventure, but also with her brave spirit.
Beauty and the Beast is a fairy tale told many times over and Disney’s live-action version follows the animated classic closely with some variation and additional scenes and few more songs. Like the animated film, it’s sweepingly romantic and just as enchanting. What the audience may struggle with is that Emma Watson’s Belle is not as…well, animated as the animated Belle. She brings a solemnity to the role, and as singing talent goes, while she is no Paige O’Hara, she can sing.
Luke Evans makes a menacingly handsome Gaston and his big number, with his sidekick LeFou (Josh Gad) is an entertaining high point that cements Gaston’s position as my favorite villain. Dan Stevens brought a bit more humanity to Beast, and with a heartbreaking song of his own, his despair is more keenly felt in this movie. But I have to admit, I prefer Josh Groban’s version of Beast’s solo, which you do get to hear if you sit through the credits.
Lumière the candelabra and Cogsworth the clock were brought to life with great voice work Ewan McGregor and Ian McKellen, respectively. Emma Thompson voiced Mrs. Potts perfectly. I don’t know if it was her voice, the theme song or the ballroom dance scene that provoked an overwhelming sense of nostalgia, but the captivating combination literally brought tears to my eyes. Kevin Kline, who played Belle’s father, Maurice, Stanley Tucci, and Broadway great Audra McDonald round out a solid supporting cast.
As a huge fan of the 1991 Beauty and the Beast, I didn’t believe a live-action version could improve on the beloved, timeless classic. But just like with the animated film, it was truly the songs that made the movie, and the music does it again for the live-action film, making it a memorable, magical treat for young and old alike.
Pandemic: The Board Game
Games
App
As skilled members of a disease-fighting team, you must keep four deadly diseases at bay while...
T.I.M.E Stories
8.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
The T.I.M.E Agency protects humanity by preventing temporal faults and paradoxes from threatening...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Black Phone (2022) in Movies
Jul 19, 2022
Tense and Suspenseful
Part STRANGER THINGS and Part IT, the new Blumhouse film, THE BLACK PHONE, is a surprisingly effective horror/thriller that is reminiscent of the better Stephen King stories - and that just might be because the short story for which this film is based on is written by Joe Hill - Stephen King’s son.
Wisely set in a time before cell phones (like both Stranger Things and It), THE BLACK PHONE tells the tale of a small town in Colorado that suddenly falls victim to “THE GRABBER” - an individual who grabs young teenage boys and kills them.
Smartly Directed by Scott Derrickson (the first DOCTOR STRANGE film), THE BLACK PHONE is effective for it focuses on the isolation of being in captivity, the anxiety of not knowing when someone is going to come through the door of the cell and the relationships of the young teens caught in “The Grabber’s” web. Credit for this, of course, goes to Derrickson who dropped out of Directing DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS (over “creative differences”) and chose this passion project as his salve - and the passion shows. It must also be pointed out that Derrickson, wisely, opts to up the tension of this film, rather than the gore, so this movie becomes a suspense flick and not torture-porn.
Derrickson also draws very good performances from the young actors playing the main roles of this film - Mason Thames (Finney), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen), Tristan Pravong (Bruce), Jacob Moran (Billy) and Miguel Cazarez Mora (Robin). All are believable in their well written roles bringing more than just one-dimension to their characters.
These kids are more than ably joined by adult actors like James Ransone (IT: CHAPTER TWO), Jeremy Davies (TV’s LOST) and E. Roger Mitchell (OUTER BANKS). All of these folks bring gravitas and reality to a story that does drift into the un-reality at times.
And then there is the performance of the always good Ethan Hawke as the villain of this piece - THE GRABBER. It is a masterful performance by Hawke who brings humanity to this monster. Almost every actor that plays a villain say that they try to see the film from the villain’s point of view and Hawke brings that to this character in spades and (almost) makes one want to root for him. It is one of the better villains realized on film in the last few years.
One quibble with The Black Phone, is that it does have a tendency to sag a bit (especially in the middle). It is in the middle of the film that one can tell that this movie was based on a SHORT story and so, by necessity, there is some padding.
But that is picking a nit in what is a smart and tense film, one that will have you on the edge of your seat until the end.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Wisely set in a time before cell phones (like both Stranger Things and It), THE BLACK PHONE tells the tale of a small town in Colorado that suddenly falls victim to “THE GRABBER” - an individual who grabs young teenage boys and kills them.
Smartly Directed by Scott Derrickson (the first DOCTOR STRANGE film), THE BLACK PHONE is effective for it focuses on the isolation of being in captivity, the anxiety of not knowing when someone is going to come through the door of the cell and the relationships of the young teens caught in “The Grabber’s” web. Credit for this, of course, goes to Derrickson who dropped out of Directing DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS (over “creative differences”) and chose this passion project as his salve - and the passion shows. It must also be pointed out that Derrickson, wisely, opts to up the tension of this film, rather than the gore, so this movie becomes a suspense flick and not torture-porn.
Derrickson also draws very good performances from the young actors playing the main roles of this film - Mason Thames (Finney), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen), Tristan Pravong (Bruce), Jacob Moran (Billy) and Miguel Cazarez Mora (Robin). All are believable in their well written roles bringing more than just one-dimension to their characters.
These kids are more than ably joined by adult actors like James Ransone (IT: CHAPTER TWO), Jeremy Davies (TV’s LOST) and E. Roger Mitchell (OUTER BANKS). All of these folks bring gravitas and reality to a story that does drift into the un-reality at times.
And then there is the performance of the always good Ethan Hawke as the villain of this piece - THE GRABBER. It is a masterful performance by Hawke who brings humanity to this monster. Almost every actor that plays a villain say that they try to see the film from the villain’s point of view and Hawke brings that to this character in spades and (almost) makes one want to root for him. It is one of the better villains realized on film in the last few years.
One quibble with The Black Phone, is that it does have a tendency to sag a bit (especially in the middle). It is in the middle of the film that one can tell that this movie was based on a SHORT story and so, by necessity, there is some padding.
But that is picking a nit in what is a smart and tense film, one that will have you on the edge of your seat until the end.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
I watched Roma exactly a week ago today. And although I knew 20 minutes in that I loved it, and at the end that I really loved it, I have taken that time to let it settle within me in before coming to write about it. Some films are so good that you have to do that: let it sink into you fully, before doing anything so trivial as judging and comparing them. Roma is incomparable! I have never seen anything like it, or felt as deeply moved by a film in a long time.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Ant-Man (2015) in Movies
May 10, 2019
"I Know a Guy"
I've been a comic book junkie all my life. I have, however, never been really interested in Ant-Man. It's not an easy super hero to fall for. It is therefore to me all the more astonishing they managed to pull it off so well in this troubled production.
There are only a handful of ways to treat an origin story an Ant-Man breaks no molds there. It hits every single beat you'd expect it to, builds up the story like you'd expect it to and concludes it like you'd expect it to. So it is left to the moments in between and the schwung with which it delivers them to make the film. And it works like a charm.
Every time I felt myself getting a bit annoyed with yet another piece of expository dialogue or predictable plot development, it sideswiped me with a fantastic action sequence, hilarious fight scene or the utterly brilliant Michael Peña. There is so much clever entertainment chucked into the film that it was very easy for me to just say 'Fuck it' and enjoy the ride.
What I loved about it was the toned down treatment of the bizarreness of the super powers. It would have been very easy to go completely overboard with this, but Reed actually manages to bring a level headedness to the fantastical which I appreciated and which actually strengthened what they were basically trying to instill in Rudd's character, some semblance of identifiable humanity. As much as I love Wright, I'm perhaps one of the few people who don't think he would have been able to restrain himself and gone the route of Scott Pilgrim which is not something that would have worked I feel.
Rudd is excellent and plays it straight, casting off a vibe of 'What the hell am I doing?' very successfully. He is likable and his transformation into this unlikely hero worked mainly because of the way he played it. The rest of the cast is great (CGI-Michael Douglas will haunt me forever) and Michael Peña truly is stellar. Give him his own film. Please.
The main attraction in this type of film is usually the action. And while the action in this is fantastic, there is surprisingly little of it, making the final confrontation actually something to look forward to And boy does it deliver. It uses the potential of the, let's be honest, silliness of the powers to its fullest, making it what it should be. A thrilling ride.
Ant-Man surprised me. Wright's involvement is palpable, which is good. But its main attraction lies in the simple fact that it is effortlessly entertaining. Fun, funny and exciting. Exactly what it should be.
There are only a handful of ways to treat an origin story an Ant-Man breaks no molds there. It hits every single beat you'd expect it to, builds up the story like you'd expect it to and concludes it like you'd expect it to. So it is left to the moments in between and the schwung with which it delivers them to make the film. And it works like a charm.
Every time I felt myself getting a bit annoyed with yet another piece of expository dialogue or predictable plot development, it sideswiped me with a fantastic action sequence, hilarious fight scene or the utterly brilliant Michael Peña. There is so much clever entertainment chucked into the film that it was very easy for me to just say 'Fuck it' and enjoy the ride.
What I loved about it was the toned down treatment of the bizarreness of the super powers. It would have been very easy to go completely overboard with this, but Reed actually manages to bring a level headedness to the fantastical which I appreciated and which actually strengthened what they were basically trying to instill in Rudd's character, some semblance of identifiable humanity. As much as I love Wright, I'm perhaps one of the few people who don't think he would have been able to restrain himself and gone the route of Scott Pilgrim which is not something that would have worked I feel.
Rudd is excellent and plays it straight, casting off a vibe of 'What the hell am I doing?' very successfully. He is likable and his transformation into this unlikely hero worked mainly because of the way he played it. The rest of the cast is great (CGI-Michael Douglas will haunt me forever) and Michael Peña truly is stellar. Give him his own film. Please.
The main attraction in this type of film is usually the action. And while the action in this is fantastic, there is surprisingly little of it, making the final confrontation actually something to look forward to And boy does it deliver. It uses the potential of the, let's be honest, silliness of the powers to its fullest, making it what it should be. A thrilling ride.
Ant-Man surprised me. Wright's involvement is palpable, which is good. But its main attraction lies in the simple fact that it is effortlessly entertaining. Fun, funny and exciting. Exactly what it should be.
Kyera (8 KP) rated Morning Star in Books
Feb 1, 2018
As with the two previous books in the series, Morning Star is brutally violent and honest in its portrayal of the darkness of humanity. It's a strange series that I don't quite know how I feel. While overall the plot and storytelling are good and I enjoy reading the series, for the most part, I am also frequently horrified by events and actions. As a result, I would recommend again that younger teen readers do not pick this up. Wait until you are older to read the series.
Sevro is such a strange character, but I love him. Some of the things he said, although unintentionally funny, had me laughing aloud (and probably sounding like a crazy person because I was by myself). Sadly, the course of the war and things that he has experienced seem to change him - as the war alters all of the characters. In the third book, he is just as funny and strangely likable as he was in the previous two books despite the horrors that he has endured.
I love the honest wonder of Ragnar, despite his fierce size and fighting skills he was not born to the same world as Darrow. He is genuinely pleased or fascinated by things most would take for granted in that world. Despite the fact that Ragnar is a terrifying killing machine - you can't help but like him.
Although there is a lot of death and destruction in these books, it is not until halfway through the third book that the pain of a character affected me. I got a little teary-eyed because it was one of the characters that I had grown to care about. I don't feel a very strong connection to them in general, which I feel is probably the main weakness of this series for me.
The second book fell prey to the typical slow nature of a middle book in a trilogy. In general, I feel that these books take some time to get into but become very engaging eventually. The third book was a little slower to start than even the others, although there were some enjoyable moments early on it wasn't until a little over halfway through the book that I really thought 'wow this is where things start happening.'
Once I was in the second half of the book, I felt like this was my favorite of the books in the series. I think Pierce Brown does his best work when he's talking about a battle. So the fighting you see in this part of the book really shines.
While it is very authentic to a war scenario, I don't personally like that so many characters die. I know people would complain if no one died because then the stakes wouldn't be as high for the characters but it makes me so sad when a character I like doesn't make it.
Despite the slow start of the third book, by the end, I had completely forgotten about it and felt that this was my favorite book in the series. The action, the schemes, everything just pulled me in and I was riveted, guessing, gasping and cheering until the very last page.
Sevro is such a strange character, but I love him. Some of the things he said, although unintentionally funny, had me laughing aloud (and probably sounding like a crazy person because I was by myself). Sadly, the course of the war and things that he has experienced seem to change him - as the war alters all of the characters. In the third book, he is just as funny and strangely likable as he was in the previous two books despite the horrors that he has endured.
I love the honest wonder of Ragnar, despite his fierce size and fighting skills he was not born to the same world as Darrow. He is genuinely pleased or fascinated by things most would take for granted in that world. Despite the fact that Ragnar is a terrifying killing machine - you can't help but like him.
Although there is a lot of death and destruction in these books, it is not until halfway through the third book that the pain of a character affected me. I got a little teary-eyed because it was one of the characters that I had grown to care about. I don't feel a very strong connection to them in general, which I feel is probably the main weakness of this series for me.
The second book fell prey to the typical slow nature of a middle book in a trilogy. In general, I feel that these books take some time to get into but become very engaging eventually. The third book was a little slower to start than even the others, although there were some enjoyable moments early on it wasn't until a little over halfway through the book that I really thought 'wow this is where things start happening.'
Once I was in the second half of the book, I felt like this was my favorite of the books in the series. I think Pierce Brown does his best work when he's talking about a battle. So the fighting you see in this part of the book really shines.
While it is very authentic to a war scenario, I don't personally like that so many characters die. I know people would complain if no one died because then the stakes wouldn't be as high for the characters but it makes me so sad when a character I like doesn't make it.
Despite the slow start of the third book, by the end, I had completely forgotten about it and felt that this was my favorite book in the series. The action, the schemes, everything just pulled me in and I was riveted, guessing, gasping and cheering until the very last page.