Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Beautiful Creatures (Caster Chronicles, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Like most books I read, Beautiful Creatures was just randomly picked up and looked interesting, so I read it. Plus, I needed some books to occupy me and it was somehow on my to-read list already. I just didn't get the chance to read it over the summer. Call that lucky to be in the library at the time.
I will probably admit, that although I read the entire series, I didn't really like the first 2 books in the series. Except for the ending and the summaries. Which was why I continued reading the series. :) Or maybe there was just something special about Ethan, Lena, Riley, Link, etc that I just can't place a tab on? Or was there a little cliffhanger (which I totally love) that just urged me to read on and give the series another try?
I will also admit that I liked Beautiful Chaos overall. The character haven't changed... although they have. In a way. Ethan is still plain Wayward, just like from Day One. Besides getting "chased around" by his other self, of course. Lena is back to herself again, although she is now a light and dark caster due to the Seventeenth Moon. I didn't really enjoy Lena's distance and major meltdown from Beautiful Darkness, so it's nice to know that we get her back again.
Link has changed majorly in a way, at least in physical and how do you say this? erm, he's developed "Vampire-like" senses after being bit by John Breed from Beautiful Darkness, so he's now one-quarters Incubus. He's still on and off with Once Upon A Siren, Riley, but she's still same old, same old Riley. In Mortal form, yet continues about life Siren Style with no powers.
Overall, Beautiful Chaos is my favorite book out of the series so far. It's more action-packed than the books before it, even if it has quite the sad ending. I will most likely read the fourth and final book in the series, Beautiful Redemption (released already) because I just have to know what happens next to Ethan, Lena and the other characters.
Speaking of which, and I know I'm a bit off-topic, but who's excited for the Beautiful Creatures movie? I know am! The trailer looked awesome...
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-beautiful-chaos-by-kami-garcia-and-margaret-stohl/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
I will probably admit, that although I read the entire series, I didn't really like the first 2 books in the series. Except for the ending and the summaries. Which was why I continued reading the series. :) Or maybe there was just something special about Ethan, Lena, Riley, Link, etc that I just can't place a tab on? Or was there a little cliffhanger (which I totally love) that just urged me to read on and give the series another try?
I will also admit that I liked Beautiful Chaos overall. The character haven't changed... although they have. In a way. Ethan is still plain Wayward, just like from Day One. Besides getting "chased around" by his other self, of course. Lena is back to herself again, although she is now a light and dark caster due to the Seventeenth Moon. I didn't really enjoy Lena's distance and major meltdown from Beautiful Darkness, so it's nice to know that we get her back again.
Link has changed majorly in a way, at least in physical and how do you say this? erm, he's developed "Vampire-like" senses after being bit by John Breed from Beautiful Darkness, so he's now one-quarters Incubus. He's still on and off with Once Upon A Siren, Riley, but she's still same old, same old Riley. In Mortal form, yet continues about life Siren Style with no powers.
Overall, Beautiful Chaos is my favorite book out of the series so far. It's more action-packed than the books before it, even if it has quite the sad ending. I will most likely read the fourth and final book in the series, Beautiful Redemption (released already) because I just have to know what happens next to Ethan, Lena and the other characters.
Speaking of which, and I know I'm a bit off-topic, but who's excited for the Beautiful Creatures movie? I know am! The trailer looked awesome...
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-beautiful-chaos-by-kami-garcia-and-margaret-stohl/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Adam White (32 KP) rated The Silence (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2020
What did I just watch?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Where do I start? This movie is like watching, Birds, Bird Box, The Village and A Quiet Place all in one, the only problem is, it doesn't work at all.
I was really hoping with this being Directed by John R. Leonetti (cinematographer of such films as, The Conjuring, Insidious, The Mask) he would bring a lot to the table, nope and then I remembered he directed The Butterfly Effect 2 and Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.
This movie being listed as a horror movie is a major let down, yes it does have a few jump scenes but I feel like the the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park made me jump a lot more, really the only scary part was the fact that someone checked off the okay for this storyline.
The storyline (not to give anything away) is a rush jump, which some movies need to move faster, I feel like this one moves way to fast, not enough is explained and way to much is left out.
One of the biggest keys of the story is that Ally Andrews (Kiernan Shipka) is teenage girl who lost her hearing a few years back, which helps the family and her during this time, as they all know how to use sign language. With that being said, the movie fails mean times at remembering the daughter is deaf!! With some members of the family using sign language, some not, sounds making her notice things, at some parts of the movie I forgot she lost her hearing.
I will skip over the crazy cult members, which trust me, I feel like NO one understands, I mean I get it but good God, give them some time of back story, nope kill them off in 11 minutes, that works too.
Skip forward to the end and bang, the lover is still healthy, and they are hunting the dam birds/dinosaurs now, no real dam answer on what happened, what's the plan of killing them off or nothing, it just ends!!
I recommend that you watch this movie just once, just enough to understand why some movies should be just left alone. Don't get me wrong, it could have worked, if they would have worked on the storyline more, and maybe followed the storyline, but hey, I have never made a movie before, so maybe I'm wrong about this all. đ¤ˇââď¸
I was really hoping with this being Directed by John R. Leonetti (cinematographer of such films as, The Conjuring, Insidious, The Mask) he would bring a lot to the table, nope and then I remembered he directed The Butterfly Effect 2 and Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.
This movie being listed as a horror movie is a major let down, yes it does have a few jump scenes but I feel like the the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park made me jump a lot more, really the only scary part was the fact that someone checked off the okay for this storyline.
The storyline (not to give anything away) is a rush jump, which some movies need to move faster, I feel like this one moves way to fast, not enough is explained and way to much is left out.
One of the biggest keys of the story is that Ally Andrews (Kiernan Shipka) is teenage girl who lost her hearing a few years back, which helps the family and her during this time, as they all know how to use sign language. With that being said, the movie fails mean times at remembering the daughter is deaf!! With some members of the family using sign language, some not, sounds making her notice things, at some parts of the movie I forgot she lost her hearing.
I will skip over the crazy cult members, which trust me, I feel like NO one understands, I mean I get it but good God, give them some time of back story, nope kill them off in 11 minutes, that works too.
Skip forward to the end and bang, the lover is still healthy, and they are hunting the dam birds/dinosaurs now, no real dam answer on what happened, what's the plan of killing them off or nothing, it just ends!!
I recommend that you watch this movie just once, just enough to understand why some movies should be just left alone. Don't get me wrong, it could have worked, if they would have worked on the storyline more, and maybe followed the storyline, but hey, I have never made a movie before, so maybe I'm wrong about this all. đ¤ˇââď¸
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Mortal Kombat 11 in Video Games
Jul 7, 2020
Killing the Kompetition
Mortal Kombat 11 is a fighting video game developed by NetherRealm Studios and published by Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment. It's a sequel to Mortal Kombat X and is the eleventh game in the franchise. The game is directed by Ed Boon and produced by Graeme Bayless and written by Dominic Cianciolo and Shawn Kittelsen. Designed by John Edwards and programmed by Gavin Freyberg with art by Steve Beran and music composed by Wilbert Roget.
Raiden, now corrupted, plans to destroy all of Earthrealm's enemies to ensure it's protection. A team lead by Sonya Blade, Cassie Cage and Jacqui Briggs assaults Netherrealm, with Raiden providing a diversion. The team is successful and Kronika forms an alliance with Liu Kang and Kitana. However Kronika is forced to rewrite history and stop Raiden, causing temporal anomolies.
This game is super badass. The combat and gameplay are as fluid as ever. The graphics and the look are outstanding. I loved playing the story mode, it felt like being in a Mortal Kombat movie. The tutorial modes it has is full of different ways to help you really get to know the moves of the characters of your choice. The tower modes remind me of the classic arcade structure that you would play back when these games took quarters and is awesome to see the different endings for each character. I really didn't enjoy the Krypt mode, I thought it would be more interesting kind of like an adventure mode or more RPGs like but basically you're just opening loot boxes or chests. And the customization mode is cool but I hear you have to grind for a really long time or spend some major bucks to get what you want. And I'm not doing that, lol. The online play is where it's at but man it's competitive, I'm just an average gamer a d took me about an hour before I got my first win. That being said though, it's really fun and pretty addicting. I really like how the fatalities are pretty easy and learning moves for characters aren't too hard either. Not a lot to complain about with this game. I give it a 8/10. Below is a link to a video I put on YouTube to show gameplay.
Raiden, now corrupted, plans to destroy all of Earthrealm's enemies to ensure it's protection. A team lead by Sonya Blade, Cassie Cage and Jacqui Briggs assaults Netherrealm, with Raiden providing a diversion. The team is successful and Kronika forms an alliance with Liu Kang and Kitana. However Kronika is forced to rewrite history and stop Raiden, causing temporal anomolies.
This game is super badass. The combat and gameplay are as fluid as ever. The graphics and the look are outstanding. I loved playing the story mode, it felt like being in a Mortal Kombat movie. The tutorial modes it has is full of different ways to help you really get to know the moves of the characters of your choice. The tower modes remind me of the classic arcade structure that you would play back when these games took quarters and is awesome to see the different endings for each character. I really didn't enjoy the Krypt mode, I thought it would be more interesting kind of like an adventure mode or more RPGs like but basically you're just opening loot boxes or chests. And the customization mode is cool but I hear you have to grind for a really long time or spend some major bucks to get what you want. And I'm not doing that, lol. The online play is where it's at but man it's competitive, I'm just an average gamer a d took me about an hour before I got my first win. That being said though, it's really fun and pretty addicting. I really like how the fatalities are pretty easy and learning moves for characters aren't too hard either. Not a lot to complain about with this game. I give it a 8/10. Below is a link to a video I put on YouTube to show gameplay.
Benedick Lewis (3001 KP) rated Nothing Lasts Forever (Die Hard, #1) in Books
Sep 30, 2020
Good to see origins to a great film (1 more)
Quick read - less than 250 pages
Only one perspective- feels like it needs more character viewpoints (1 more)
Prose can be difficult to follow
Surprising: film better than book
Nothing Lasts Forever was the framework for the great film Die Hard. Being a massive fan of the film as well as putting it under academic scrutiny, it was interesting to see the similarities and differences between book and film.
However, having seen Die Hard multiple times, it was sometimes difficult to picture the protagonist, Joe Leland, doing the John McClane things. Further more, the book only depicts Lelandâs point of view and the story could have benefited from being told from multiple perspectives: Lelandâs, the terrorists and the hostages. Unfortunately, the terroristsâ motive is summed up in one page and it doesnât wholly satisfy, especially given in the film, the plot is more devious and fiendishly clever giving cinema one of its all time greatest villains.
To talk more about the comparisons is doing literature an injustice. Time and again, it needs to be reminded that they are two different mediums with different requirements. That said, there is definitely one big major difference that really distinguishes the two products of this idea and the only thing that can be said is that it is towards the end. Those that know the film and decide to read this book will know when you get to that part but it is one that really sets it apart.
Frank Sinartra played Leland in the prequel to this book, The Detective. Itâs not essential that you read that book first to understand this one. Author Roderick Thorp plays catch up in the opening chapters. He does however spoil that story so if you are looking to read that, best put this to one side.
Thorpâs style is a little all over the place, especially regarding the set pieces and it can be difficult to imagine the scenes he is trying to depict. Leland is not the most likeable of heroes either and it can be difficult to root for him but it is a short story and can be done in one sitting so itâll be over before you have the time to really dislike him.
Read this if you havenât seen Die Hard. Read this but make sure you watch Die Hard rather adjacent to that. It would be surprising if you found the book better. In this case, the film is superior. A rare case indeed.
However, having seen Die Hard multiple times, it was sometimes difficult to picture the protagonist, Joe Leland, doing the John McClane things. Further more, the book only depicts Lelandâs point of view and the story could have benefited from being told from multiple perspectives: Lelandâs, the terrorists and the hostages. Unfortunately, the terroristsâ motive is summed up in one page and it doesnât wholly satisfy, especially given in the film, the plot is more devious and fiendishly clever giving cinema one of its all time greatest villains.
To talk more about the comparisons is doing literature an injustice. Time and again, it needs to be reminded that they are two different mediums with different requirements. That said, there is definitely one big major difference that really distinguishes the two products of this idea and the only thing that can be said is that it is towards the end. Those that know the film and decide to read this book will know when you get to that part but it is one that really sets it apart.
Frank Sinartra played Leland in the prequel to this book, The Detective. Itâs not essential that you read that book first to understand this one. Author Roderick Thorp plays catch up in the opening chapters. He does however spoil that story so if you are looking to read that, best put this to one side.
Thorpâs style is a little all over the place, especially regarding the set pieces and it can be difficult to imagine the scenes he is trying to depict. Leland is not the most likeable of heroes either and it can be difficult to root for him but it is a short story and can be done in one sitting so itâll be over before you have the time to really dislike him.
Read this if you havenât seen Die Hard. Read this but make sure you watch Die Hard rather adjacent to that. It would be surprising if you found the book better. In this case, the film is superior. A rare case indeed.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Paper Towns in Books
May 30, 2017
John Green is such a good writer
Paper Towns is a brilliantly written novel by John Green. Having only previously read The Fault in our Stars I have little to compare it to and cannot say whether it is his best. I am writing this less that half an hour after finishing Paper Towns therefore it is still fresh in my mind, which may explain my slight preference over TFIOS. However the story lines are so different that it is not really fair to compare them.
Set in Orlando, Florida, Paper Towns is narrated by eighteen-year-old Quentin Jacobson (often referred to as Q). It begins with a flash back to when he and next door neighbour, Margo Roth Spiegelman, were nine and discovered a dead body in the park. It is here that the differences in character are pointed out: âAs I took those two steps back, Margo took two equally small and quiet steps forward.â Q is an anxious boy, whereas Margo comes across as very confident.
Despite their childhood relationship, for the main bulk of the story Q and Margo have grown apart. They belong to different social circles: Margo to the popular crowd and Q with the gamers, band members and social outcasts. But things take a turn when one night Margo climbs through Qâs bedroom window and insists he accompany her on a nighttime adventure, going around righting wrongs and wronging rights.
But the next day Margo runs away telling no one where she is going, except it appears that she has left clues to her whereabouts. Clues only intended for Q to discover. With the help of his prom-obsessed friend, Ben; Radar, the guy whose parents own the worldâs largest collection of black Santas (seriously, where does Green come up with this stuff?); and Lacey, Margoâs best friend and Benâs soon to be girlfriend; Q struggles to understand the clues and uncover Margoâs hiding place.
To begin with it is exciting to read about Q and his friends unscrambling the hidden messages but as the story goes on and Margo is yet to be found a sense of dread creeps up on us and Q begins to think the worst.
The final section, however, is fast past and thrilling to read as the characters travel across states, with a rather short time limit, in Qâs mini van in a final attempt to find Margo. What will they find when they arrive? Will Margo still be there?
At first I was not sure that I would like this book. Chapter one is mostly about Quentin, Ben and Radar fooling around as boys do, but once everything kicks off with Margo it is really exciting. Similarly to The Fault in our Stars, Green has filled Paper Towns with clever metaphors with paper, string, balloons and grass being used to represent life. It is a very witty narrative containing lots of humour, yet also manages to convey important ideas about the way we see the world, and the people in it.
Paper Towns can be described as a contemporary, coming-of-age story. As mentioned already, Margo was portrayed as a confident girl whereas Quentin was the opposite. Despite Q stating âI wanted Margoâs disappearance to change me; but it hasnât, not reallyâ I think Green has shown major character developments, and possibly even role reversals. Q may never completely get rid of his anxieties and does not totally become a different person, but he does gain more confidence as he is forced out of his comfort zone, and his perception of other people also begins to alter. Margo on the other hand may not be all that she seems. The real Margo may in fact be a quiet, rather lost teen in a world she feels trapped in. I think this story and Qâs development has the potential to inspire others of similar ages and make all readers question things about themselves.
Overall, an exceptionally good read.
Set in Orlando, Florida, Paper Towns is narrated by eighteen-year-old Quentin Jacobson (often referred to as Q). It begins with a flash back to when he and next door neighbour, Margo Roth Spiegelman, were nine and discovered a dead body in the park. It is here that the differences in character are pointed out: âAs I took those two steps back, Margo took two equally small and quiet steps forward.â Q is an anxious boy, whereas Margo comes across as very confident.
Despite their childhood relationship, for the main bulk of the story Q and Margo have grown apart. They belong to different social circles: Margo to the popular crowd and Q with the gamers, band members and social outcasts. But things take a turn when one night Margo climbs through Qâs bedroom window and insists he accompany her on a nighttime adventure, going around righting wrongs and wronging rights.
But the next day Margo runs away telling no one where she is going, except it appears that she has left clues to her whereabouts. Clues only intended for Q to discover. With the help of his prom-obsessed friend, Ben; Radar, the guy whose parents own the worldâs largest collection of black Santas (seriously, where does Green come up with this stuff?); and Lacey, Margoâs best friend and Benâs soon to be girlfriend; Q struggles to understand the clues and uncover Margoâs hiding place.
To begin with it is exciting to read about Q and his friends unscrambling the hidden messages but as the story goes on and Margo is yet to be found a sense of dread creeps up on us and Q begins to think the worst.
The final section, however, is fast past and thrilling to read as the characters travel across states, with a rather short time limit, in Qâs mini van in a final attempt to find Margo. What will they find when they arrive? Will Margo still be there?
At first I was not sure that I would like this book. Chapter one is mostly about Quentin, Ben and Radar fooling around as boys do, but once everything kicks off with Margo it is really exciting. Similarly to The Fault in our Stars, Green has filled Paper Towns with clever metaphors with paper, string, balloons and grass being used to represent life. It is a very witty narrative containing lots of humour, yet also manages to convey important ideas about the way we see the world, and the people in it.
Paper Towns can be described as a contemporary, coming-of-age story. As mentioned already, Margo was portrayed as a confident girl whereas Quentin was the opposite. Despite Q stating âI wanted Margoâs disappearance to change me; but it hasnât, not reallyâ I think Green has shown major character developments, and possibly even role reversals. Q may never completely get rid of his anxieties and does not totally become a different person, but he does gain more confidence as he is forced out of his comfort zone, and his perception of other people also begins to alter. Margo on the other hand may not be all that she seems. The real Margo may in fact be a quiet, rather lost teen in a world she feels trapped in. I think this story and Qâs development has the potential to inspire others of similar ages and make all readers question things about themselves.
Overall, an exceptionally good read.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The movie The Revenant is a new release starring Leonardo DiCaprio
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glassâ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someoneâs nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying⌠the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. Iâm not sure
if that was because I didnât like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I donât even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldnât overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didnât turn out to be my
cup of tea.
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glassâ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someoneâs nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying⌠the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. Iâm not sure
if that was because I didnât like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I donât even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldnât overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didnât turn out to be my
cup of tea.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Solo? So-so.
When the whole Disney âbroaden out the Star Wars universeâ thing was first mooted I was NOT enthusiastic about the prospect. Then, in Christmas 2016 âRogue Oneâ burst onto our screens as a breath of fresh air, and I thought âOK, I can be wrong!â. But even jolted by that pleasant surprise, I always thought that the second proposed diversion off the main hyperspace highway into âRadiator Springsâ â a Han Solo back-story flick â might fall short. It just didnât float my boat.
Add into that proposition the decision to give the film initially to âThe Lego Movieâ directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (why Disney? why?); them trying to forge it as a âcomedyâ; them falling horribly short and being fired by Disney; Disney bringing Ron Howard (âInfernoâ, âRushâ) in to try to salvage the project; and Howard reportedly re-shooting 75% of the film and you have the makings of a turkey of galactic proportions.
With all that being said, I was surprised I enjoyed it as much as I did. But thatâs off a very low base of expectation.
As you might guess, we go back to see Han⌠just Han⌠as a delinquent youth trying to keep his head above water under the thrall of the Fagin-like Lady Proxima (who â no pun intended â keeps her head under the water for most of the time). He is desperate to pull off a con thatâs lucrative enough that it will get him and his girlfriend Qiâra (Emilia Clarke, âMe Before Youâ; âTerminator: Genisysâ; âGame of Thronesâ) off-planet and into a free life. Things donât go to plan though and Han â now Han Solo â finds himself a trooper of the Galactic Empire. He links up with fellow rogues Beckett (Woody Harrelson, âWar for the Planet of the Apesâ; âThree Billboards in Ebbing, Missouriâ), Val (Thandie Newton, âWestworldâ, â2012â), Rio (voiced by Jon Favreau, âSpider-Man: Homecomingâ; âIron Man Threeâ) and their assertive and rebellious droid L3-37 (voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge) in a get-rich-or-die mission for vicious gang-boss Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany, âAvengers: Infinity Warâ).
The film has its moments for sure:
There are some nice background touches: an army recruitment video plays to the sound of John Williamâs empire march (played I am assured by my more musical wife in a major key to sound more uplifting and positive!);
Hanâs first meeting with that famous walking carpet (played by Joonas Suotamo) is memorable, as is the introduction to that âcard player, gambler and scoundrelâ Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover, âThe Martianâ, âSpider-Man: Homecomingâ): all flamboyance, self-regard and well-dressed ego;
solo2
Never count your money while youâre sitting at the table. Lando Calrissian played by Donald Glover putting his ship (you probably havenât heard of it) on the line. (Source: Lucasfilm).
the character of L3-37 is an excellent addition to the saga, forcefully demanding equality for droids: I would have liked to have seen much more of her;
there is a nice twist on the Greedo/Han âwho shot firstâ debate;
production design and special effects are up to standard for a Star Wars film, and I enjoyed John Powellâs score, incorporating a new âyoung Hanâ theme from John Williams himself;
and Erin Kellyman (in here movie debut) is just breathtaking and strikingly brilliant as the be-freckled renegade Enfys Nest.
But overall itâs all a bit disjointed and jumbled, probably as befits its growing pains. We are introduced to Solo within five seconds of the filmâs openingâŚ.. BAM! No exquisite ârevealâ as we saw with River Phoenix in âIndiana Jones and the Last Crusadeâ. I found this disconcerting and it took me ten minutes to get into the film as a result.
When it gets going it rather tries too hard to join up more Star Wars dots than it needs to. âRogue Oneâ did that exceedingly well, but that was because it needed to as âEpisode 3.5â. Here there are visual and verbal references everywhere as the screenwriters (Lawrence and Jonathan Kasdan) desperately try to knit their story into the canon. As an example, the action moves to the mines of Kessel at one point. Kessel? Kessel? Wasnât that a throwaway C3PO line from the âA New Hopeâ about being âsmashed to who knows whatâ in said mines?. So obviously, in the WHOLE GALAXY thatâs where the story leads us, with the local lingo for the hyperspace fuel McGuffin at the heart of the plot being âspiceâ! Itâs all a bit too trite for my liking.
And while a key protagonist appearing near the end of the film (no spoilers) is both a startling surprise and great fun, donât get me started on the timeline implicationsâŚ. (see the spoiler section below the trailer for more).
Alden Ehrenreich, who was just brilliant in âHail Caesarâ (âWas that it tâWERRRE so simpleâ) for me barely makes it past bland in the lead role. One of the defining characteristics of Harrison Fordâs Solo was his swagger and bravado and unfortunately Ehrenreich barely rates a three out of ten on the scale. I also found the chemistry with Emelia Clarke to be lukewarm. Clarke still seems to be struggling to make a significant breakthrough to the big screenâŚ. âMe Before Youâ still seems to be her high water mark so far. Here she has a key and complex role, but comes over as just plain unconvincing and âmehâ.
Ron Howard has clearly done a good job in buffing up a poisoned chalice so it can at least share space on the Star Wars shelf without being laughed out of the Cantina. Perhaps with a more coordinated and thought-through run-up to a Solo sequel (more Enfys Nest please!) this offshoot might have legs.
Add into that proposition the decision to give the film initially to âThe Lego Movieâ directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (why Disney? why?); them trying to forge it as a âcomedyâ; them falling horribly short and being fired by Disney; Disney bringing Ron Howard (âInfernoâ, âRushâ) in to try to salvage the project; and Howard reportedly re-shooting 75% of the film and you have the makings of a turkey of galactic proportions.
With all that being said, I was surprised I enjoyed it as much as I did. But thatâs off a very low base of expectation.
As you might guess, we go back to see Han⌠just Han⌠as a delinquent youth trying to keep his head above water under the thrall of the Fagin-like Lady Proxima (who â no pun intended â keeps her head under the water for most of the time). He is desperate to pull off a con thatâs lucrative enough that it will get him and his girlfriend Qiâra (Emilia Clarke, âMe Before Youâ; âTerminator: Genisysâ; âGame of Thronesâ) off-planet and into a free life. Things donât go to plan though and Han â now Han Solo â finds himself a trooper of the Galactic Empire. He links up with fellow rogues Beckett (Woody Harrelson, âWar for the Planet of the Apesâ; âThree Billboards in Ebbing, Missouriâ), Val (Thandie Newton, âWestworldâ, â2012â), Rio (voiced by Jon Favreau, âSpider-Man: Homecomingâ; âIron Man Threeâ) and their assertive and rebellious droid L3-37 (voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge) in a get-rich-or-die mission for vicious gang-boss Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany, âAvengers: Infinity Warâ).
The film has its moments for sure:
There are some nice background touches: an army recruitment video plays to the sound of John Williamâs empire march (played I am assured by my more musical wife in a major key to sound more uplifting and positive!);
Hanâs first meeting with that famous walking carpet (played by Joonas Suotamo) is memorable, as is the introduction to that âcard player, gambler and scoundrelâ Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover, âThe Martianâ, âSpider-Man: Homecomingâ): all flamboyance, self-regard and well-dressed ego;
solo2
Never count your money while youâre sitting at the table. Lando Calrissian played by Donald Glover putting his ship (you probably havenât heard of it) on the line. (Source: Lucasfilm).
the character of L3-37 is an excellent addition to the saga, forcefully demanding equality for droids: I would have liked to have seen much more of her;
there is a nice twist on the Greedo/Han âwho shot firstâ debate;
production design and special effects are up to standard for a Star Wars film, and I enjoyed John Powellâs score, incorporating a new âyoung Hanâ theme from John Williams himself;
and Erin Kellyman (in here movie debut) is just breathtaking and strikingly brilliant as the be-freckled renegade Enfys Nest.
But overall itâs all a bit disjointed and jumbled, probably as befits its growing pains. We are introduced to Solo within five seconds of the filmâs openingâŚ.. BAM! No exquisite ârevealâ as we saw with River Phoenix in âIndiana Jones and the Last Crusadeâ. I found this disconcerting and it took me ten minutes to get into the film as a result.
When it gets going it rather tries too hard to join up more Star Wars dots than it needs to. âRogue Oneâ did that exceedingly well, but that was because it needed to as âEpisode 3.5â. Here there are visual and verbal references everywhere as the screenwriters (Lawrence and Jonathan Kasdan) desperately try to knit their story into the canon. As an example, the action moves to the mines of Kessel at one point. Kessel? Kessel? Wasnât that a throwaway C3PO line from the âA New Hopeâ about being âsmashed to who knows whatâ in said mines?. So obviously, in the WHOLE GALAXY thatâs where the story leads us, with the local lingo for the hyperspace fuel McGuffin at the heart of the plot being âspiceâ! Itâs all a bit too trite for my liking.
And while a key protagonist appearing near the end of the film (no spoilers) is both a startling surprise and great fun, donât get me started on the timeline implicationsâŚ. (see the spoiler section below the trailer for more).
Alden Ehrenreich, who was just brilliant in âHail Caesarâ (âWas that it tâWERRRE so simpleâ) for me barely makes it past bland in the lead role. One of the defining characteristics of Harrison Fordâs Solo was his swagger and bravado and unfortunately Ehrenreich barely rates a three out of ten on the scale. I also found the chemistry with Emelia Clarke to be lukewarm. Clarke still seems to be struggling to make a significant breakthrough to the big screenâŚ. âMe Before Youâ still seems to be her high water mark so far. Here she has a key and complex role, but comes over as just plain unconvincing and âmehâ.
Ron Howard has clearly done a good job in buffing up a poisoned chalice so it can at least share space on the Star Wars shelf without being laughed out of the Cantina. Perhaps with a more coordinated and thought-through run-up to a Solo sequel (more Enfys Nest please!) this offshoot might have legs.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Roland Emmerich does big budget disaster flicks as well as Dairylea does cheese. However, some of his most recent attempts to dominate the box office have been panned by viewers and critics alike, who say that he has become too reliant on special effects.
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play presidentâs daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesnât have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesnât need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, itâs all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play presidentâs daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesnât have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesnât need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, itâs all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
AndâŚwhat is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he letâs them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. ButâŚon the other handâŚhe has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the filmâs tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And thatâs too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audienceâs enjoyment - it feels like a series of âacting scenesâ and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russellâs films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, youâll be saying to yourself âthatâs wonderfully actedâ for you wonât be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russellâs issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, heâd have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, itâs an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for âwhat could have beenâ.
Letter Grade: B (âCâ for the first half, âAâ for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
AndâŚwhat is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he letâs them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. ButâŚon the other handâŚhe has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the filmâs tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And thatâs too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audienceâs enjoyment - it feels like a series of âacting scenesâ and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russellâs films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, youâll be saying to yourself âthatâs wonderfully actedâ for you wonât be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russellâs issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, heâd have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, itâs an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for âwhat could have beenâ.
Letter Grade: B (âCâ for the first half, âAâ for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Redemption in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I did not read the first book in the series, Protector, but that did not seem to matter all that much in reading this book. I caught up relatively easily to what the author felt I needed to know about Jane Perry's story so that I could dive into the action-packed, suspense-filled plot of this book.
One of the first things I noticed about the main character of Jane Perry is both her seemingly-abrasive personality, complete with a foul mouth, and her battle with alcoholism. Throughout the book, her strong personality is both her greatest strength and her biggest weakness. Her daily battle to remain sober - pushing six months - is also a prominent theme, complete with AA meetings, sobriety chips, and the 12-step program. I found these details interesting from the educational standpoint, since I have known a few alcoholics, both recovering and not, but nothing about the process of recovery from this horrible addiction.
The woman that hires Jane Perry, Katherine Clark (better known as Kit), is in many ways the very opposite of Jane. A woman in her 60's, she describes her personality as that of an "earth mother". Dealing with stage 4 cancer, she is a strict adherent of New Age philosophies and herbal medicine to treat both her cancer and her particular brand of spirituality. In addition, several of the plot's "bad guys" were followers of a particular sect of Fundamentalist Christianity that Kit spends an overt amount of time condemning, despite her many lectures of tolerance, love, and forgiveness. This in turn incites Jane to regularly mock Fundamentalist Christianity by proxy.
While I realize that radicals of any religion are easy fodder for mainstream literature, the personal beliefs of the author completely overpower the actual plot of the book. It is patently obvious that Dewey is a major supporter of all things New Age, with a penchant for Buddhism, and is completely against a literal translation of the Bible. As I have said in previous reviews, a good author is invisible to the reader, but in this book, the author often felt more present in the plot than the actual characters the book was intended to be about - some sort of amalgamation of Jane and Kit. Despite the good intentions that I am sure Dewey harbors in writing in this fashion, I became rather depressed by the end of the book by the over-saturation of Dewey's agenda of New Ageism versus Christianity, as the book became less and less about the heroics of Jane Perry and more about the beliefs of Laurel Dewey.
While I acknowledge that I do not agree with everything within the particular doctrines of the character of Dr. John Bartosh, I do consider myself a Fundamentalist Christian, a person who believes in both the literal and figurative translation of the Bible. For the author to expect me, the reader, to not even be slightly offended by the condemnation and open mockery of what I consider to be the foundation of my morality and how I live my life on a daily basis is both presumptuous and insensitive.
Despite this, the book was well-written from a literary approach, with unique characters, an unpredictable plot, and no loose ends.
One of the first things I noticed about the main character of Jane Perry is both her seemingly-abrasive personality, complete with a foul mouth, and her battle with alcoholism. Throughout the book, her strong personality is both her greatest strength and her biggest weakness. Her daily battle to remain sober - pushing six months - is also a prominent theme, complete with AA meetings, sobriety chips, and the 12-step program. I found these details interesting from the educational standpoint, since I have known a few alcoholics, both recovering and not, but nothing about the process of recovery from this horrible addiction.
The woman that hires Jane Perry, Katherine Clark (better known as Kit), is in many ways the very opposite of Jane. A woman in her 60's, she describes her personality as that of an "earth mother". Dealing with stage 4 cancer, she is a strict adherent of New Age philosophies and herbal medicine to treat both her cancer and her particular brand of spirituality. In addition, several of the plot's "bad guys" were followers of a particular sect of Fundamentalist Christianity that Kit spends an overt amount of time condemning, despite her many lectures of tolerance, love, and forgiveness. This in turn incites Jane to regularly mock Fundamentalist Christianity by proxy.
While I realize that radicals of any religion are easy fodder for mainstream literature, the personal beliefs of the author completely overpower the actual plot of the book. It is patently obvious that Dewey is a major supporter of all things New Age, with a penchant for Buddhism, and is completely against a literal translation of the Bible. As I have said in previous reviews, a good author is invisible to the reader, but in this book, the author often felt more present in the plot than the actual characters the book was intended to be about - some sort of amalgamation of Jane and Kit. Despite the good intentions that I am sure Dewey harbors in writing in this fashion, I became rather depressed by the end of the book by the over-saturation of Dewey's agenda of New Ageism versus Christianity, as the book became less and less about the heroics of Jane Perry and more about the beliefs of Laurel Dewey.
While I acknowledge that I do not agree with everything within the particular doctrines of the character of Dr. John Bartosh, I do consider myself a Fundamentalist Christian, a person who believes in both the literal and figurative translation of the Bible. For the author to expect me, the reader, to not even be slightly offended by the condemnation and open mockery of what I consider to be the foundation of my morality and how I live my life on a daily basis is both presumptuous and insensitive.
Despite this, the book was well-written from a literary approach, with unique characters, an unpredictable plot, and no loose ends.