Search
Search results
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Great Zoo of China in Books
Nov 13, 2019
The Chinese government have been working for years to create the ultimate tourist attraction, a very special zoo stocking with only one kind of animal - dragons. Long considered a myth the Chinese have found that they do exist and now they are ready to astound the world by showing of these amazing creatures and the fantastic zoo they have created to house them.
CJ Cameron is one of those invited to attend a special press preview tour, on behalf of National Geographic. A renowned expert on all types of reptiles she takes her brother Hamish with her as a photographer as part of a small and select group so that they can be the first to reveal the zoo to the world.
But on this special day, the dragons have their own plan and soon the Chinese are fighting for control of the dragons and the zoo they have created, with Cameron and the other group of journalists caught in the middle as the fearsome beasts rampage through the complex. Cameron must rely on her wits and experience with crocodiles and alligators to survive.
The obvious four word description of this book is 'Jurassic Park with dragons' but also superficially that does describe it's also missing the point of both books. Indeed Reilly acknowledges the Jurassic Park angle, both in an off the cuff remark by Hamish at the start of the book and also in the interview at the back. Jurassic Park has Michael Crichton in full science-as-thriller mode, pondering the latest advances (at the time) of both DNA and fossil discoveries and then giving a glimpse of how these beasts must have been when they ruled the world. The thrill comes from the dinosaurs themselves, they are the stars of the book.
In The Great Zoo of China the dragons are very much a McGuffin. Any suitably fearsome creature would have done, real, historical, mythical or completely imagined. They are simply a powerful threat to humans and agents capable of wreaking huge amounts of death and destruction, as would be expected of Reilly. The star of the show is Cameron, and to a lesser extent her brother (and a few others).
Cameron is Reilly's first lead female character in an action role (The Tournament being a completely different kind of book) and this works really well in the novel, both in terms of setup and plot and she makes a convincing heroine using her knowledge and intelligence to combat each threat.
Of course there are moments where the reader has to suspend their belief. Reilly doesn't aim for gritty realism, he goes for the big and impressive set pieces, almost certain death and narrow escapes that clearly would be impossible in the real world. His novels are very much blockbuster movies transferred to the written word, with the added bonus that the special effects come free courtesy of the reader's imagination.
As usual the plot drives at a breathtaking pace although the real story doesn't start until Reilly has taken us on a tour of his ultimate zoo and shown off his dragons before letting them off the leash.
Yes some of it is pure hokum and there are a couple of plot holes, but at the end of the day this was not written to win any literary prizes. This was written to entertain and thrill and it does that with ease.
Rated: Strong language and graphic violence (i.e. lots of people eaten by dragons)
CJ Cameron is one of those invited to attend a special press preview tour, on behalf of National Geographic. A renowned expert on all types of reptiles she takes her brother Hamish with her as a photographer as part of a small and select group so that they can be the first to reveal the zoo to the world.
But on this special day, the dragons have their own plan and soon the Chinese are fighting for control of the dragons and the zoo they have created, with Cameron and the other group of journalists caught in the middle as the fearsome beasts rampage through the complex. Cameron must rely on her wits and experience with crocodiles and alligators to survive.
The obvious four word description of this book is 'Jurassic Park with dragons' but also superficially that does describe it's also missing the point of both books. Indeed Reilly acknowledges the Jurassic Park angle, both in an off the cuff remark by Hamish at the start of the book and also in the interview at the back. Jurassic Park has Michael Crichton in full science-as-thriller mode, pondering the latest advances (at the time) of both DNA and fossil discoveries and then giving a glimpse of how these beasts must have been when they ruled the world. The thrill comes from the dinosaurs themselves, they are the stars of the book.
In The Great Zoo of China the dragons are very much a McGuffin. Any suitably fearsome creature would have done, real, historical, mythical or completely imagined. They are simply a powerful threat to humans and agents capable of wreaking huge amounts of death and destruction, as would be expected of Reilly. The star of the show is Cameron, and to a lesser extent her brother (and a few others).
Cameron is Reilly's first lead female character in an action role (The Tournament being a completely different kind of book) and this works really well in the novel, both in terms of setup and plot and she makes a convincing heroine using her knowledge and intelligence to combat each threat.
Of course there are moments where the reader has to suspend their belief. Reilly doesn't aim for gritty realism, he goes for the big and impressive set pieces, almost certain death and narrow escapes that clearly would be impossible in the real world. His novels are very much blockbuster movies transferred to the written word, with the added bonus that the special effects come free courtesy of the reader's imagination.
As usual the plot drives at a breathtaking pace although the real story doesn't start until Reilly has taken us on a tour of his ultimate zoo and shown off his dragons before letting them off the leash.
Yes some of it is pure hokum and there are a couple of plot holes, but at the end of the day this was not written to win any literary prizes. This was written to entertain and thrill and it does that with ease.
Rated: Strong language and graphic violence (i.e. lots of people eaten by dragons)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Gnaw (2017) in Movies
Dec 3, 2019
Verdict: Slow Build, Great Ending
Story: Gnaw starts when Jennifer Conrad (Mitchell) escapes from her abusive husband, to start a new life in a small apartment complex, where the handyman Terry (Gass) takes her under his wing, trying to make her feel welcome. When one of the neighbours spends hours crying at night before killing herself.
Jennifer must deal with her ex-husband Boyd (Johnson) finding her, just as she gets a pet turtle and more painfully an uncomfortable bite, which just seems to keep getting worse.
Thoughts on Gnaw
Characters – Jennifer has been struck in an abusive relationship which she has gotten the courage to leave behind her, this does leave her in a small apartment complex where she must try to start a new life. Things seem positive, when she bumps into an old friend who wants to help her get a job, only things start going badly after her neighbour’s suicide and bites which appear on her skin, with no explanation behind them. She must face her own past, deal with a problem before moving on with her own life. Terry Lumley is the friendly handyman that offers Jennifer all the support while staying the apartments. Boyd is the abusive ex-husband and police officers, making it harder for Jennifer to escape him, he has always put her down and wants to keep his control over her. Claudette runs the apartments she doesn’t get on with anybody, just wants to see money coming in.
Performances – Penelope Mitchell in the leading role is the star of the show here, being able to show the pain she is running from and the hope she is fighting for. Kyle Gass is the next best thing in the film, where he does bring moments of laughter in his kind natured character. The rest of the cast do a solid job without being tested with what they have to do.
Story – The story here follows an abuse victim that is trying to escape her own life’s pain only to find herself dealing with the latest problem which has come her way in the form of a bite. This story does manage to show us how difficult getting out of an abusive relationship can be for the victim, where starting a new life can take more time than people believe, this side of the story is the strongest part because it shows the real horrors of Jennifer’s life. When we get into the mystery about the bites, it does go on the routine way, until we learn the truth, which makes both sides of the story get connected nicely.
Horror – The horror side of the film mixes the reality of being abused by a partner with the unknown of mysterious bites being found on the body and why they are there.
Settings – Most of the film remains in the hotel complex which is a place where people go to start life again.
Special Effects – When it comes to the effects we see what happens with the bites getting worse and the revel of what is behind it.
Scene of the Movie – The showdown in the room.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The job interview.
Final Thoughts – This is a nice slow build horror that tries to reflect the ideas of the horror being in real life rather than needing supernatural elements.
Overall: Horror that tests the reality of life.
Story: Gnaw starts when Jennifer Conrad (Mitchell) escapes from her abusive husband, to start a new life in a small apartment complex, where the handyman Terry (Gass) takes her under his wing, trying to make her feel welcome. When one of the neighbours spends hours crying at night before killing herself.
Jennifer must deal with her ex-husband Boyd (Johnson) finding her, just as she gets a pet turtle and more painfully an uncomfortable bite, which just seems to keep getting worse.
Thoughts on Gnaw
Characters – Jennifer has been struck in an abusive relationship which she has gotten the courage to leave behind her, this does leave her in a small apartment complex where she must try to start a new life. Things seem positive, when she bumps into an old friend who wants to help her get a job, only things start going badly after her neighbour’s suicide and bites which appear on her skin, with no explanation behind them. She must face her own past, deal with a problem before moving on with her own life. Terry Lumley is the friendly handyman that offers Jennifer all the support while staying the apartments. Boyd is the abusive ex-husband and police officers, making it harder for Jennifer to escape him, he has always put her down and wants to keep his control over her. Claudette runs the apartments she doesn’t get on with anybody, just wants to see money coming in.
Performances – Penelope Mitchell in the leading role is the star of the show here, being able to show the pain she is running from and the hope she is fighting for. Kyle Gass is the next best thing in the film, where he does bring moments of laughter in his kind natured character. The rest of the cast do a solid job without being tested with what they have to do.
Story – The story here follows an abuse victim that is trying to escape her own life’s pain only to find herself dealing with the latest problem which has come her way in the form of a bite. This story does manage to show us how difficult getting out of an abusive relationship can be for the victim, where starting a new life can take more time than people believe, this side of the story is the strongest part because it shows the real horrors of Jennifer’s life. When we get into the mystery about the bites, it does go on the routine way, until we learn the truth, which makes both sides of the story get connected nicely.
Horror – The horror side of the film mixes the reality of being abused by a partner with the unknown of mysterious bites being found on the body and why they are there.
Settings – Most of the film remains in the hotel complex which is a place where people go to start life again.
Special Effects – When it comes to the effects we see what happens with the bites getting worse and the revel of what is behind it.
Scene of the Movie – The showdown in the room.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The job interview.
Final Thoughts – This is a nice slow build horror that tries to reflect the ideas of the horror being in real life rather than needing supernatural elements.
Overall: Horror that tests the reality of life.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Sun Is Also A Star (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
At some point I may get bored of YA adaptations that throw two young people together with a bit of adversity. I'm not saying that this wasn't good but there are other typed of YA books out there that could be done.
After years living in the US, Natasha and her family are a day away from being deported back to Jamaica. She's determined to find a way to have them stay so instead of packing she's off to make one last attempt to stay in the city she loves.
Daniel is about to have the biggest interview of his life, his whole future is resting on it, but he throws all thoughts of it aside when he sees Natasha looking up in a crowd of people ignoring the world. She's a beautiful anomaly in his life and he needs to find her no matter the consequences.
Circumstances bring the two together and Daniel manages to convince her that even an hour with him could change their lives forever.
When I write it down like that the story doesn't sound quite so... magical? Man sees attractive young woman and attempts to stalk her... yeah, slightly creepy, but thankfully the film doesn't feel like that.
Nicola Yoon is two for two with her novels (the first being Everything, Everything) and we've got another lovely film in The Sun Is Also A Star. Of course it's yet another book I haven't read, if only there were a few more hours of leisure time in our lives.
Thinking back on this I find the timeline for the film a little confusing, which is strange considering you know that the majority happens over the space of two days. Perhaps it's because it's a little far fetched, perhaps it's also because they're constantly going from place to place and it seems like more than just a day's worth of activity.
Natasha is played by Yara Shahidi, the only thing I know her from recently is Black-ish, which I love. I had reservations about this casting, actors going from long-running shows into films doesn't always end well, partly because of the different acting style needed and partly from my side and being very familiar with their character. I shouldn't have worried, she does a great job with this role, and it's nice to see a character that doesn't have a typical backstory.
The same can be said for Daniel, played by Riverdale's Charles Melton. Watching his struggle with the path of his life is really interesting and I liked the small flashback to where everything was decided. If we ignore the creepiness of the couple's meeting then Daniel is a nice down to earth character and Melton strikes a nice balance between his home life and his actual life around people he knows.
Together they make a captivating couple on screen, and I like how they're each other's support even though they don't know that much about each other. They have great chemistry and that definitely boosted the enjoyment of the film.
I hardly made any notes when watching this, those that I did were about the nice use of voiceovers (that sounded very much like nature documentary), some good songs at the beginning, and then the intriguing and nice way they ended it. It's an enjoyable watch but I think it's come at the wrong end of the YA adaptation trend, everything is very similar despite having some individual charm.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-sun-is-also-star-movie-review.html
After years living in the US, Natasha and her family are a day away from being deported back to Jamaica. She's determined to find a way to have them stay so instead of packing she's off to make one last attempt to stay in the city she loves.
Daniel is about to have the biggest interview of his life, his whole future is resting on it, but he throws all thoughts of it aside when he sees Natasha looking up in a crowd of people ignoring the world. She's a beautiful anomaly in his life and he needs to find her no matter the consequences.
Circumstances bring the two together and Daniel manages to convince her that even an hour with him could change their lives forever.
When I write it down like that the story doesn't sound quite so... magical? Man sees attractive young woman and attempts to stalk her... yeah, slightly creepy, but thankfully the film doesn't feel like that.
Nicola Yoon is two for two with her novels (the first being Everything, Everything) and we've got another lovely film in The Sun Is Also A Star. Of course it's yet another book I haven't read, if only there were a few more hours of leisure time in our lives.
Thinking back on this I find the timeline for the film a little confusing, which is strange considering you know that the majority happens over the space of two days. Perhaps it's because it's a little far fetched, perhaps it's also because they're constantly going from place to place and it seems like more than just a day's worth of activity.
Natasha is played by Yara Shahidi, the only thing I know her from recently is Black-ish, which I love. I had reservations about this casting, actors going from long-running shows into films doesn't always end well, partly because of the different acting style needed and partly from my side and being very familiar with their character. I shouldn't have worried, she does a great job with this role, and it's nice to see a character that doesn't have a typical backstory.
The same can be said for Daniel, played by Riverdale's Charles Melton. Watching his struggle with the path of his life is really interesting and I liked the small flashback to where everything was decided. If we ignore the creepiness of the couple's meeting then Daniel is a nice down to earth character and Melton strikes a nice balance between his home life and his actual life around people he knows.
Together they make a captivating couple on screen, and I like how they're each other's support even though they don't know that much about each other. They have great chemistry and that definitely boosted the enjoyment of the film.
I hardly made any notes when watching this, those that I did were about the nice use of voiceovers (that sounded very much like nature documentary), some good songs at the beginning, and then the intriguing and nice way they ended it. It's an enjoyable watch but I think it's come at the wrong end of the YA adaptation trend, everything is very similar despite having some individual charm.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-sun-is-also-star-movie-review.html
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Oct 7, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Cloverfield Paradox is the third and (at time of writing) the last Cloverfield film and it's main purpose is to explain where Clover and his friends come from. Does it do this in an easy to follow, straight forward way that fits easily into the already established Cloverfield universe? Hell no.
The first film was a found footage monster movie and the second film was a psychological thriller that was loosely linked to the first so naturally the third film is a hard Sci-Fi set in the near future. The earth has used up most of it's resources and everyone is nearly at war, the last hope is the Cloverfield space-station which has the 'Shepard' beam, an experimental particle beam that, if it works, will produce an endless supply of energy. The lack of resources and looming war are the only problems, there are no monsters and there never were.
The Cloverfield Paradox mainly follows the crew of the space station and quickly turns into a Sci-Fi horror in a similar vain to 'Event Horizon'. Basically the crew activate the Shepard Beam, it works then crashes and the earth disappears. Then strange things start to happen. At the same time something happens on earth, there is an attack on America and a few people run around trying to find out what happens and one hides in a bunker similar to the one in 10 Cloverfield Lane. Meanwhile the crew of the Cloverfield try to find out where the earth is.
As a Sci-Fi, the Cloverfield Paradox works well, it uses just enough jargon and theoretical physics and as a horror it works well, killing off the cast in weird and wonderful ways. And as an explanation for Clover well SPOILER that's what attacked Earth, of course this is only reviled right at the end and there is no explanation to how they got to the past in the other film's. Except there is, about twenty minuets into the film, after everything has been set up but before everything goes wrong there is a news program shown on a monitor whilst the crew begin to start their experiments. The news show is interviewing the author of a book called 'The Cloverfield Paradox' and, in the interview the author explains everything from what is going to happen to how Clover and the other monsters appear on earth even though know one in the future knows anything about them, so pay attention.
One thing the all three Cloverfield films did well was all of the extra stuff. The original film started with tease trailers, infomercial's form company's seen in the film and fake news reels. This kind of marketing continued for all three films and other information was made available including one big link between Cloverfield and the Cloverfield Paradox. The last scene of the first film, the scene that was set before everything that happened with the couple by the beach shows something falling from the sky in the background, this is part of the Cloverfield space station.
With the revelation that the creatures now exist all through time a fourth film was rumoured - Overlord- however, even though the film was made by the same company and the same people it was never part of the Cloverfield universe and is/was meant to be the start of it's own franchise. Even though it could easily fit even as a ret con.
The first film was a found footage monster movie and the second film was a psychological thriller that was loosely linked to the first so naturally the third film is a hard Sci-Fi set in the near future. The earth has used up most of it's resources and everyone is nearly at war, the last hope is the Cloverfield space-station which has the 'Shepard' beam, an experimental particle beam that, if it works, will produce an endless supply of energy. The lack of resources and looming war are the only problems, there are no monsters and there never were.
The Cloverfield Paradox mainly follows the crew of the space station and quickly turns into a Sci-Fi horror in a similar vain to 'Event Horizon'. Basically the crew activate the Shepard Beam, it works then crashes and the earth disappears. Then strange things start to happen. At the same time something happens on earth, there is an attack on America and a few people run around trying to find out what happens and one hides in a bunker similar to the one in 10 Cloverfield Lane. Meanwhile the crew of the Cloverfield try to find out where the earth is.
As a Sci-Fi, the Cloverfield Paradox works well, it uses just enough jargon and theoretical physics and as a horror it works well, killing off the cast in weird and wonderful ways. And as an explanation for Clover well SPOILER that's what attacked Earth, of course this is only reviled right at the end and there is no explanation to how they got to the past in the other film's. Except there is, about twenty minuets into the film, after everything has been set up but before everything goes wrong there is a news program shown on a monitor whilst the crew begin to start their experiments. The news show is interviewing the author of a book called 'The Cloverfield Paradox' and, in the interview the author explains everything from what is going to happen to how Clover and the other monsters appear on earth even though know one in the future knows anything about them, so pay attention.
One thing the all three Cloverfield films did well was all of the extra stuff. The original film started with tease trailers, infomercial's form company's seen in the film and fake news reels. This kind of marketing continued for all three films and other information was made available including one big link between Cloverfield and the Cloverfield Paradox. The last scene of the first film, the scene that was set before everything that happened with the couple by the beach shows something falling from the sky in the background, this is part of the Cloverfield space station.
With the revelation that the creatures now exist all through time a fourth film was rumoured - Overlord- however, even though the film was made by the same company and the same people it was never part of the Cloverfield universe and is/was meant to be the start of it's own franchise. Even though it could easily fit even as a ret con.
Garrett (1099 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
May 18, 2020
Set design (2 more)
Costumes
Most of the acting
Story (2 more)
Theme
Message/meaning
I think I need to note a few things about my review before I actually get into it. First, I got this for free in a giveaway. Second, having watched the trailers for this I thought I wasn't going to like it and I didn't see it in theaters, the buzz and good reviews made me want to enter the giveaway so I could see it because I likely wouldn't have paid for it. Third, I know that I can "grade" movies I don't like harsher than maybe they deserve. Finally, in an effort to prevent me from being too harsh I "forced" my sister to watch it with me and some of her views of the movie and review are mixed in with my opinion of it.
It was apparent to me, and my sister, that this movie was not an attempt at a comic book movie or even a movie about the Joker but a character study and a look into mental illness. This is confirmed in the special features with an interview with the director/writer/producer. I think that if this wasn't a "Joker" movie I would have liked it a little bit more. The biggest problem that this movie has, and many others like it, when the main character is a "bad guy" and they try to make you understand/sympathize with them and it doesn't work it messes up the movie's feel. It did that for both of us.
As a "DC" movie and set in the Batman "universe" this fails in almost every way possible. The actor and character are way too old (mid 30's to 40's at best), when compared to how young Bruce Wayne is (about 8). Joker is malnourished, frail, weak, incapable of planning anything out, and I can't stress this enough famous throughout the country for the actions in this movie with his real name... None of that fits the Joker from any Batman in the comics.
There are good to great parts in this movie but they are few and far between. Within this movie are the bones of a much better movie. Many of the choices the director made, that he is proud of, I think severely damage this movie. Chief among them is the dancing. With the exception of the celebrating down the stairs which is one of the most famous and favorite scenes in the movie (and that's how I saw it as celibating not dancing) the rest of them are useless, don't fit with the actual character (the Joker), and add to the run time of an already bloated and often very slow movie.
In the end I know I'm probably in the minority with my opinion on this movie, of those that have seen it, but I do think there is a good lesson here. If you see the trailers for this movie and it looks up your alley or it interests you then see it, but maybe just on streaming or renting. If you see the trailers for this and don't think you'd like it you are probably very right and shouldn't waste your money on it. If you get a chance to see it for free and you want to see what all the "hype" is about maybe check it out... but there are probably many better options that you should see before trying this out.
It was apparent to me, and my sister, that this movie was not an attempt at a comic book movie or even a movie about the Joker but a character study and a look into mental illness. This is confirmed in the special features with an interview with the director/writer/producer. I think that if this wasn't a "Joker" movie I would have liked it a little bit more. The biggest problem that this movie has, and many others like it, when the main character is a "bad guy" and they try to make you understand/sympathize with them and it doesn't work it messes up the movie's feel. It did that for both of us.
As a "DC" movie and set in the Batman "universe" this fails in almost every way possible. The actor and character are way too old (mid 30's to 40's at best), when compared to how young Bruce Wayne is (about 8). Joker is malnourished, frail, weak, incapable of planning anything out, and I can't stress this enough famous throughout the country for the actions in this movie with his real name... None of that fits the Joker from any Batman in the comics.
There are good to great parts in this movie but they are few and far between. Within this movie are the bones of a much better movie. Many of the choices the director made, that he is proud of, I think severely damage this movie. Chief among them is the dancing. With the exception of the celebrating down the stairs which is one of the most famous and favorite scenes in the movie (and that's how I saw it as celibating not dancing) the rest of them are useless, don't fit with the actual character (the Joker), and add to the run time of an already bloated and often very slow movie.
In the end I know I'm probably in the minority with my opinion on this movie, of those that have seen it, but I do think there is a good lesson here. If you see the trailers for this movie and it looks up your alley or it interests you then see it, but maybe just on streaming or renting. If you see the trailers for this and don't think you'd like it you are probably very right and shouldn't waste your money on it. If you get a chance to see it for free and you want to see what all the "hype" is about maybe check it out... but there are probably many better options that you should see before trying this out.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Pootie Tang (2001) in Movies
May 3, 2018
Dare You Not to Like it
Platinum recording artist Pootie Tang (Lance Crouther) has to figure out how to get his mojo back after the scandalous Ireenie (Jennifer Coolidge) steals his magical belt that is the source of both his power and swag. Sound dumb? Well, it is. But it's damn funny and I challenge anyone not to laugh without cracking up at the absurdity of it all.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Pootie provides the most hilarious moments in the film. As it opens, Pootie is having an interview with Bob Costas and you quickly learn that Pootie speaks his own language literally. For the sake of this review, let's call it Pootie Slang. The audience doesn't understand Pootie Slang, but the world he lives in can somehow make out every word he's saying. Best example I can think of: Groot speech. The words he says are enough to make you laugh, but it's the confidence in which the lines are delivered that take it to a whole new level. Pootie's got swag. For whatever reason, the ladies love him and everyone respects him, including the "Tippy ties" (those are children, by the way). It's one of those films you have to see to understand.
If Pootie isn't enough, there's an array of characters that keep the film entertaining. There's Biggy Shorty (Wanda Sykes), Pootie's love interest who has an eccentric style of dress and will slap the taste out of the mouth of anyone that disrespects Pooty. Then you have Trucky, Pootie's loudmouth friend that basically lives off of Pootie's success. Dirty Dee (Reg E. Cathey), the dirty scoundrel who walks around constantly covered in muck. My personal favorite: Lacey (Mario Joyner) who has a special knack for repeating everything a person said as if it were his idea. I could go on...
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
You haven't laughed until you have seen eight-year-old Pootie walking down a street while a woman three times his age throws his big wheel out the window because she's mad at him. You haven't laughed until you see Pootie's father get attacked at his job by a "gorilla" which is really someone in a gorilla costume. You really haven't laughed until you've seen Pootie record a song with absolutely no sound as he silently screams into the mic. And you really haven't laughed...well, you get my point.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 8
Memorability: 7
Pace: 7
Pacing was a bit spotty at times. When it's rolling, it's really rolling. However, there were a handful of dry spots where the film didn't seem like it knew where it was headed.
Plot: 6
The plot is all over the place at times, like watching a grenade explode. It has a direct line of sight, sure. There is a clear beginning, middle, and end. It's all the filler between these three things where the film goes south. There is a bit of forgiveness here as Pootie Tang manages to stay humorous even when it's confusing. Sometimes the confusion is what makes things funny. The writing definitely could have been stronger in certain points.
Resolution: 9
Overall: 84
Will Pootie Tang ever win an award for underrated comedy? No. Is it a pretty darn good time that makes you laugh consistently? Absolutely. It's dumb, but that's what makes it endearing. Honestly, I don't think it's any less dumb than a Bill and Ted film or *insert Pauly Shore film here* and those are regarded as cult classics. Just saying...Give it a chance. Maybe you hate it, but it's going to leave you laughing a few times and that's all that matters.
P.S.--Did I really just mention Groot and Pootie Tang in the same review? Wow...
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Pootie provides the most hilarious moments in the film. As it opens, Pootie is having an interview with Bob Costas and you quickly learn that Pootie speaks his own language literally. For the sake of this review, let's call it Pootie Slang. The audience doesn't understand Pootie Slang, but the world he lives in can somehow make out every word he's saying. Best example I can think of: Groot speech. The words he says are enough to make you laugh, but it's the confidence in which the lines are delivered that take it to a whole new level. Pootie's got swag. For whatever reason, the ladies love him and everyone respects him, including the "Tippy ties" (those are children, by the way). It's one of those films you have to see to understand.
If Pootie isn't enough, there's an array of characters that keep the film entertaining. There's Biggy Shorty (Wanda Sykes), Pootie's love interest who has an eccentric style of dress and will slap the taste out of the mouth of anyone that disrespects Pooty. Then you have Trucky, Pootie's loudmouth friend that basically lives off of Pootie's success. Dirty Dee (Reg E. Cathey), the dirty scoundrel who walks around constantly covered in muck. My personal favorite: Lacey (Mario Joyner) who has a special knack for repeating everything a person said as if it were his idea. I could go on...
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
You haven't laughed until you have seen eight-year-old Pootie walking down a street while a woman three times his age throws his big wheel out the window because she's mad at him. You haven't laughed until you see Pootie's father get attacked at his job by a "gorilla" which is really someone in a gorilla costume. You really haven't laughed until you've seen Pootie record a song with absolutely no sound as he silently screams into the mic. And you really haven't laughed...well, you get my point.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 8
Memorability: 7
Pace: 7
Pacing was a bit spotty at times. When it's rolling, it's really rolling. However, there were a handful of dry spots where the film didn't seem like it knew where it was headed.
Plot: 6
The plot is all over the place at times, like watching a grenade explode. It has a direct line of sight, sure. There is a clear beginning, middle, and end. It's all the filler between these three things where the film goes south. There is a bit of forgiveness here as Pootie Tang manages to stay humorous even when it's confusing. Sometimes the confusion is what makes things funny. The writing definitely could have been stronger in certain points.
Resolution: 9
Overall: 84
Will Pootie Tang ever win an award for underrated comedy? No. Is it a pretty darn good time that makes you laugh consistently? Absolutely. It's dumb, but that's what makes it endearing. Honestly, I don't think it's any less dumb than a Bill and Ted film or *insert Pauly Shore film here* and those are regarded as cult classics. Just saying...Give it a chance. Maybe you hate it, but it's going to leave you laughing a few times and that's all that matters.
P.S.--Did I really just mention Groot and Pootie Tang in the same review? Wow...
Amanda (96 KP) rated The Seven Husbands Of Evelyn in Books
Apr 1, 2019
I’m under absolutely no obligation to make sense to you.
“I’m under absolutely no obligation to make sense to you.”
Why in the world did it take me this long to pick up this book? I mean, seriously, why did it? The audio book was especially enjoyable because of the different voices for different POV’s.
Evelyn Hugo is a renowned actress and when Monique, a journalist who mostly writes puff pieces, is requested to write a piece about her, why in the world would she turn it down? Monique gets more than she bargains for when Evelyn tells her that she has no intention of giving an interview, but instead, giving her, her life story for a tell all book before she dies.
Monique will be privy to everything in Evelyn’s past from her journey to get to Hollywood to her seven husbands, and the one she calls her one true love. How does one pass up an opportunity like that?
When listening to this book, I had to keep in mind that it began in the fifties, so things were different for everybody, especially for women trying to make it in Hollywood. Some decisions were better than others. I loved Evelyn, but not so much as most of the choices she made for where she wanted to go, or who she wanted to be with at the time.
When I listen to Evelyn and how she is with most people than others, I think of how Marilyn Monroe was the same way. Did you know that with that movie she did with Lawrence Olivier that acted those ways intentionally? She knew he was annoyed by her so she just went with it. I find that hysterical and she had a crummy life somewhat.
I really enjoy how the story progressed and certain characters. I loved Harry, but toward the end of the story, I felt that Evelyn didn’t do a lot to help him recover (won’t tell you what from for fear of spoilers). Another character named Celia, she was really not my favorite. I didn’t care for her when she was introduced and while she had some good qualities, I just didn’t like her. That’s just me, though, so don’t take my word for it entirely.
I loved that the story started at a point and ended at the same point. It was a full circle and everything and everyone had a purpose. I almost cried toward the end, I mean I was just so sad but so moved. Please don’t pass this book up because you may or may not cry. I really don’t think there’s a single thing I didn’t like about this book. I hate that people had to go through so much in those time frames. It makes me sad that we live in a world where, while it’s gotten better, but we still have a long way to go and I’m not sure how long it would take to really get there, you know?
“It’s always been fascinating to me how things can be simultaneously true and false, how people can be good and bad all in one, how someone can love you in a way that is beautifully selfless while serving themselves ruthlessly.”
I will say that so far this is my favorite read of this year so far. There will have to be an outstanding book to surpass this one this year. I wonder which one would be up for the challenge next?
I do plan on reading more of Reid’s books. This one is on my top recommended list if you haven’t read anything from her’s yet.
Why in the world did it take me this long to pick up this book? I mean, seriously, why did it? The audio book was especially enjoyable because of the different voices for different POV’s.
Evelyn Hugo is a renowned actress and when Monique, a journalist who mostly writes puff pieces, is requested to write a piece about her, why in the world would she turn it down? Monique gets more than she bargains for when Evelyn tells her that she has no intention of giving an interview, but instead, giving her, her life story for a tell all book before she dies.
Monique will be privy to everything in Evelyn’s past from her journey to get to Hollywood to her seven husbands, and the one she calls her one true love. How does one pass up an opportunity like that?
When listening to this book, I had to keep in mind that it began in the fifties, so things were different for everybody, especially for women trying to make it in Hollywood. Some decisions were better than others. I loved Evelyn, but not so much as most of the choices she made for where she wanted to go, or who she wanted to be with at the time.
When I listen to Evelyn and how she is with most people than others, I think of how Marilyn Monroe was the same way. Did you know that with that movie she did with Lawrence Olivier that acted those ways intentionally? She knew he was annoyed by her so she just went with it. I find that hysterical and she had a crummy life somewhat.
I really enjoy how the story progressed and certain characters. I loved Harry, but toward the end of the story, I felt that Evelyn didn’t do a lot to help him recover (won’t tell you what from for fear of spoilers). Another character named Celia, she was really not my favorite. I didn’t care for her when she was introduced and while she had some good qualities, I just didn’t like her. That’s just me, though, so don’t take my word for it entirely.
I loved that the story started at a point and ended at the same point. It was a full circle and everything and everyone had a purpose. I almost cried toward the end, I mean I was just so sad but so moved. Please don’t pass this book up because you may or may not cry. I really don’t think there’s a single thing I didn’t like about this book. I hate that people had to go through so much in those time frames. It makes me sad that we live in a world where, while it’s gotten better, but we still have a long way to go and I’m not sure how long it would take to really get there, you know?
“It’s always been fascinating to me how things can be simultaneously true and false, how people can be good and bad all in one, how someone can love you in a way that is beautifully selfless while serving themselves ruthlessly.”
I will say that so far this is my favorite read of this year so far. There will have to be an outstanding book to surpass this one this year. I wonder which one would be up for the challenge next?
I do plan on reading more of Reid’s books. This one is on my top recommended list if you haven’t read anything from her’s yet.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Oct 5, 2018 (Updated Oct 16, 2018)
A bit rough around the edges, but pretty enjoyable overall
Contains spoilers, click to show
The run up to seeing Venom has followed what seems to be a bit of a growing trend for me recently - tickets go on sale for a movie that I'm very excited to see and despite the slightly average trailers, I grab a ticket and hope for the best. Then in the days beforehand, a load of negative reviews appear online and I really hope that they're all wrong, like they all were with Hereditary. Recently we've had The Nun, then The Predator, and now Venom. I was really hoping this wasn't going to be three in a row!
A space probe is returning to Earth. We hear the astronauts communicating with a team back home. They're talking about some 'specimens' that they're bringing back, and then something goes wrong onboard and the rocket crashes to Earth, landing somewhere in Malaysia. The probe belongs to bio-engineering company Life Foundation, and the specimens they're carrying are symbiotic lifeforms. Life Foundation are all over the crash site, with only one of the astronauts surviving, barely. Meanwhile, CEO Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed) is very excited by the symbiotes and returns them to the lab, becoming obsessed with assimilating them into animals. Obviously he has plans to eventually (as quickly as possible) try this out on humans. Apparently, it's all for the good of the planet or some guff like that.
Meanwhile, we're introduced to investigative journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) and his girlfriend Anne (Michelle Williams). He's basically the most unconvincing journalist I've ever seen in a movie, but the montage of clips seems determined to tell us otherwise. He has his own TV show! It's great! He's helped to uncover injustice, righted wrongs, and is apparently a nice down to earth guy. When he secures an interview with Carlton Drake from Life Foundation, he's ready to uncover some dirt, but his boss warns him not to overstep the mark. Of course, he doesn't listen, stepping over the line and getting himself fired. He also manages to lose girlfriend Anne in the process.
The next chunk of the movie is just Tom Hardy moping around, and it's not that great. I don't know if it's the script, the acting, or both. It's interspersed occasionally with scenes involving Carlton Drake looking to expose the symbiotes to human subjects - the homeless, the poor or the just plain stupid - and you start wishing they'd just hurry up and bring Venom and Eddie together, in the hopes that things will pick up a bit. Luckily, once that does happen things do pick up considerably and Tom Hardy is so much better suited as the crazy man who's feeling a little bit unwell than the sad, boring journalist. There's a good level of humour from that point on too, along with some fairly decent action.
Unfortunately though, Venom suffers from some of the same dreadful editing that The Predator did. Scenes that seem to just prematurely end suddenly and successions of rapid cuts during some of the action, making it difficult to see just what the hell is going on. Overall it's a bit rough around the edges, and definitely not as slick as your standard Marvel movie (this one is just 'in association with Marvel'). That being said, this was in no way the car crash movie that many of the reviews had lead me to believe, and on the whole I actually really enjoyed it.
A decent mid credits scene sets up some exciting potential for a further movie, but I feel they really need to tighten things up a bit in order to make another one worth seeing.
A space probe is returning to Earth. We hear the astronauts communicating with a team back home. They're talking about some 'specimens' that they're bringing back, and then something goes wrong onboard and the rocket crashes to Earth, landing somewhere in Malaysia. The probe belongs to bio-engineering company Life Foundation, and the specimens they're carrying are symbiotic lifeforms. Life Foundation are all over the crash site, with only one of the astronauts surviving, barely. Meanwhile, CEO Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed) is very excited by the symbiotes and returns them to the lab, becoming obsessed with assimilating them into animals. Obviously he has plans to eventually (as quickly as possible) try this out on humans. Apparently, it's all for the good of the planet or some guff like that.
Meanwhile, we're introduced to investigative journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) and his girlfriend Anne (Michelle Williams). He's basically the most unconvincing journalist I've ever seen in a movie, but the montage of clips seems determined to tell us otherwise. He has his own TV show! It's great! He's helped to uncover injustice, righted wrongs, and is apparently a nice down to earth guy. When he secures an interview with Carlton Drake from Life Foundation, he's ready to uncover some dirt, but his boss warns him not to overstep the mark. Of course, he doesn't listen, stepping over the line and getting himself fired. He also manages to lose girlfriend Anne in the process.
The next chunk of the movie is just Tom Hardy moping around, and it's not that great. I don't know if it's the script, the acting, or both. It's interspersed occasionally with scenes involving Carlton Drake looking to expose the symbiotes to human subjects - the homeless, the poor or the just plain stupid - and you start wishing they'd just hurry up and bring Venom and Eddie together, in the hopes that things will pick up a bit. Luckily, once that does happen things do pick up considerably and Tom Hardy is so much better suited as the crazy man who's feeling a little bit unwell than the sad, boring journalist. There's a good level of humour from that point on too, along with some fairly decent action.
Unfortunately though, Venom suffers from some of the same dreadful editing that The Predator did. Scenes that seem to just prematurely end suddenly and successions of rapid cuts during some of the action, making it difficult to see just what the hell is going on. Overall it's a bit rough around the edges, and definitely not as slick as your standard Marvel movie (this one is just 'in association with Marvel'). That being said, this was in no way the car crash movie that many of the reviews had lead me to believe, and on the whole I actually really enjoyed it.
A decent mid credits scene sets up some exciting potential for a further movie, but I feel they really need to tighten things up a bit in order to make another one worth seeing.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Red Joan (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
There are some films that just stop me in my tracks, not because they're good or bad, but because they're so mediocre. I watched this two weeks ago and I've sat down to try and write this review about 8 times, each time I've ended up barely writing a sentence before giving up.
The film is split between present and past, this means that there's very little Dench despite what we're led to believe in the trailer. Old Joan doesn't get much of a chance to do anything other than be old, when she does get the chance to do something else it is effective but far too rare.
When the whole story relies so heavily on stories from the past I was surprised that they didn't use more of a storytelling idea. You don't see any of the evidence that they have in the modern case, we're just propelled back into Joan's memories. This made for a very easy leap from the interview room to the past. Joan was there telling her story so the fact they didn't use this opportunity to have her telling a story that spills over into the flashbacks as a voiceover seems like a rather large missed opportunity. It also might have helped form a bigger connection between the two versions of the main character and allowed us a better connection with her.
Dench was definitely not used to the best effect. I'd expect Joan in her old age to still have some of the pep from her youth about her, but there seemed to be few similarities between the two incarnations. I think I enjoyed Sophie Cookson as young Joan, but again, it wasn't something I was wowed about.
The whole production erred too much on the side of relationships rather than the espionage. I certainly think it could have stood up to having something a bit grittier in it. As it was it felt very much like a TV movie, and I possibly would have been more interested in it had it been a TV movie rather than a general release. Now I said that I feel it's completely mad that I have different expectations from the two areas for film releases.
Red Joan had very little that stood out for me, there were only two moments that shone. Tom Hughes as Leo giving his speech before meeting Joan, the reaction of the crowd to him was tremendous and overall the scene worked well. Then there's Ben Miles as Joan's son, Nick. He isn't bad in any of his scenes but right at the end of the film when he stands with his mother I was actually moved. The first of these scenes made me think there was hope for the film, the second sadly came too late to make a difference to the whole thing.
Everything about Red Joan was just okay in the end. When someone asked me about it my response was a shrug and the comment "it was a film". Coming from me that generally means the film will be forgotten very quickly.
I wish there was more to say about it. Ultimately I think I would have had more enjoyment out of researching the story this was loosely based on.
What you should do
This isn't one I'd recommend, the moments that are interesting and satisfying to watch do not outweigh the mediocre. Red Joan is something I would say is more interesting as non-fiction than fiction.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
One thing from the movie that I feel we should all take as a top life tip is that men are easily scared by sanitary products, a very handy thing to remember.
The film is split between present and past, this means that there's very little Dench despite what we're led to believe in the trailer. Old Joan doesn't get much of a chance to do anything other than be old, when she does get the chance to do something else it is effective but far too rare.
When the whole story relies so heavily on stories from the past I was surprised that they didn't use more of a storytelling idea. You don't see any of the evidence that they have in the modern case, we're just propelled back into Joan's memories. This made for a very easy leap from the interview room to the past. Joan was there telling her story so the fact they didn't use this opportunity to have her telling a story that spills over into the flashbacks as a voiceover seems like a rather large missed opportunity. It also might have helped form a bigger connection between the two versions of the main character and allowed us a better connection with her.
Dench was definitely not used to the best effect. I'd expect Joan in her old age to still have some of the pep from her youth about her, but there seemed to be few similarities between the two incarnations. I think I enjoyed Sophie Cookson as young Joan, but again, it wasn't something I was wowed about.
The whole production erred too much on the side of relationships rather than the espionage. I certainly think it could have stood up to having something a bit grittier in it. As it was it felt very much like a TV movie, and I possibly would have been more interested in it had it been a TV movie rather than a general release. Now I said that I feel it's completely mad that I have different expectations from the two areas for film releases.
Red Joan had very little that stood out for me, there were only two moments that shone. Tom Hughes as Leo giving his speech before meeting Joan, the reaction of the crowd to him was tremendous and overall the scene worked well. Then there's Ben Miles as Joan's son, Nick. He isn't bad in any of his scenes but right at the end of the film when he stands with his mother I was actually moved. The first of these scenes made me think there was hope for the film, the second sadly came too late to make a difference to the whole thing.
Everything about Red Joan was just okay in the end. When someone asked me about it my response was a shrug and the comment "it was a film". Coming from me that generally means the film will be forgotten very quickly.
I wish there was more to say about it. Ultimately I think I would have had more enjoyment out of researching the story this was loosely based on.
What you should do
This isn't one I'd recommend, the moments that are interesting and satisfying to watch do not outweigh the mediocre. Red Joan is something I would say is more interesting as non-fiction than fiction.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
One thing from the movie that I feel we should all take as a top life tip is that men are easily scared by sanitary products, a very handy thing to remember.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Nov 4, 2019
Knives Out was probably my most anticipated film of the festival, so much so that I brought a ticket to see it rather than deal with the hassle of the press screening.
If you take Clue, add some Agatha Christie and maybe a large helping of A-list cast you'll find yourself at the feet of Knives Out. I don't have a problem with any of that at all, the problem I had is that what we got was predictable. That can work, predictable is comforting, but here I watched and felt like I'd seen it before. It felt like I was watching a remake of something. It was Clue without being as fun and Agatha Christie without being as intriguing. Would it have been better had I not been so excited to see it? Potentially, though we'll never know now.
There are definitely things to like though.
We get the classic interview phase with each family member questioned alone, the whole scene has a wonderful flow to it. With the script, the actors and the clips of each character edited together so well you get the perfect comedic timing on everything.
Marta was an interesting character but Ana de Armas (Blade Runner 2049 and No Time To Die) gave what I felt was an almost forgettable performance, which is incredible considering Marta has a severe problem with lying that leads to hilarious situations. It's a solid performance, I don't want to say she did a bad job, but the other characters are larger than life and it would have been nice to see a little more of that in her. I know she's supposed to be the meek and mild help but you see little glimmers of it in there yet it doesn't come to anything.
Benoit Blanc is Knives Out's Poirot, though he's much more of a crossbreed of Poirot and Hastings. Excellent with the deductions and yet just a little oblivious. Daniel Craig plays him just slightly frustrating, which again is something you'd expect in this sort of thing but I wasn't entirely convinced. I did like Blanc's interactions with Marta, though only from his side of things, it did something interesting to his character but somehow made no impact on Marta's.
A brief special mention should go to Lakeith Stanfield and Noah Segan, their appearances felt fleeting but they were always amusing.
I thought the rest of the cast was good, as you'd expect, that might seems rather dismissive but how am I supposed to feel about it? A-listers in main roles... fantastic, A-listers in cameos... fantastic, but the rest of the characters in this was filled with powerful actors all in bit parts. When that went through my head all I could think was "please sir, I want some more." Toni Collette, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon... great performances but I'd happily have had an encore.
I did enjoy it, but as I sat in the audience and everyone around me roared with laughter at things I thought were just okay I had to wonder what I'd missed. Was it because I was so hyped for it in the first place? Was it festival fatigue? Or have I just seen so much of this that I just couldn't appreciate their take on the classic? I wish I knew.
Cineworld are putting on an Unlimited Screening of this a few days before it goes on general release, I'll definitely be checking it out again and I'm hoping that a second viewing will make me feel differently about it. In the meantime though it's nice to see so many people rating this one highly.
Full review originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/knives-out-movie-review.html
If you take Clue, add some Agatha Christie and maybe a large helping of A-list cast you'll find yourself at the feet of Knives Out. I don't have a problem with any of that at all, the problem I had is that what we got was predictable. That can work, predictable is comforting, but here I watched and felt like I'd seen it before. It felt like I was watching a remake of something. It was Clue without being as fun and Agatha Christie without being as intriguing. Would it have been better had I not been so excited to see it? Potentially, though we'll never know now.
There are definitely things to like though.
We get the classic interview phase with each family member questioned alone, the whole scene has a wonderful flow to it. With the script, the actors and the clips of each character edited together so well you get the perfect comedic timing on everything.
Marta was an interesting character but Ana de Armas (Blade Runner 2049 and No Time To Die) gave what I felt was an almost forgettable performance, which is incredible considering Marta has a severe problem with lying that leads to hilarious situations. It's a solid performance, I don't want to say she did a bad job, but the other characters are larger than life and it would have been nice to see a little more of that in her. I know she's supposed to be the meek and mild help but you see little glimmers of it in there yet it doesn't come to anything.
Benoit Blanc is Knives Out's Poirot, though he's much more of a crossbreed of Poirot and Hastings. Excellent with the deductions and yet just a little oblivious. Daniel Craig plays him just slightly frustrating, which again is something you'd expect in this sort of thing but I wasn't entirely convinced. I did like Blanc's interactions with Marta, though only from his side of things, it did something interesting to his character but somehow made no impact on Marta's.
A brief special mention should go to Lakeith Stanfield and Noah Segan, their appearances felt fleeting but they were always amusing.
I thought the rest of the cast was good, as you'd expect, that might seems rather dismissive but how am I supposed to feel about it? A-listers in main roles... fantastic, A-listers in cameos... fantastic, but the rest of the characters in this was filled with powerful actors all in bit parts. When that went through my head all I could think was "please sir, I want some more." Toni Collette, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon... great performances but I'd happily have had an encore.
I did enjoy it, but as I sat in the audience and everyone around me roared with laughter at things I thought were just okay I had to wonder what I'd missed. Was it because I was so hyped for it in the first place? Was it festival fatigue? Or have I just seen so much of this that I just couldn't appreciate their take on the classic? I wish I knew.
Cineworld are putting on an Unlimited Screening of this a few days before it goes on general release, I'll definitely be checking it out again and I'm hoping that a second viewing will make me feel differently about it. In the meantime though it's nice to see so many people rating this one highly.
Full review originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/knives-out-movie-review.html