Search
Search results
Elli H Burton (1288 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Oct 28, 2019
Gives a fresh glimpse into the world the AMAZING JK Rowling created (1 more)
Definitely feel the casting was done well.
Dumbledamn.
Lets start with the fact that this film has Johnny Deep in it, yet it's not another Depp film. He fits in the role well I think, I mean, I know it's Johnny Depp and the man is fantastic but sometimes an actor of his caliber can stick out like a sore thumb but he slots in nicely.
Eddie Redmayne is just one of the best actors England, NO the world has ever seen and he plays Newt FLAWLESSLY.
The story is fascinating, not just this film but the first as well, we all thought we knew so much about the Harry Potter universe but FB lets us explore the world even more which as a huge fan, I craved.
I love how dark the film is yet the lighter parts don't seem out of place. The choices the producers made in the way it is shot is magical in itself (I don't like spoilers so I hope if you have seen it or will be seeing it you will see what I mean).
As it has been confirmed there will be a 3rd installment of the FB franchise, I feel I can say without spoiling it that the ending was great. It had that "What???! I NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?!" feeling.
Another thing I like is that theres not a majorly star studded cast. I feel when films have big names left right and center it can sort of, over shadow the actual brilliance of the writing/ acting/ storyline /production. It just has good actors.
Eddie Redmayne is just one of the best actors England, NO the world has ever seen and he plays Newt FLAWLESSLY.
The story is fascinating, not just this film but the first as well, we all thought we knew so much about the Harry Potter universe but FB lets us explore the world even more which as a huge fan, I craved.
I love how dark the film is yet the lighter parts don't seem out of place. The choices the producers made in the way it is shot is magical in itself (I don't like spoilers so I hope if you have seen it or will be seeing it you will see what I mean).
As it has been confirmed there will be a 3rd installment of the FB franchise, I feel I can say without spoiling it that the ending was great. It had that "What???! I NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?!" feeling.
Another thing I like is that theres not a majorly star studded cast. I feel when films have big names left right and center it can sort of, over shadow the actual brilliance of the writing/ acting/ storyline /production. It just has good actors.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Batgirl, Vol. 3: Death of the Family in Books
Nov 30, 2020
Man, I have no idea WTF happened here, but I am the minority, as I just wasn't feeling it here!
Gail Simone is a favorite writer of mine, as well as a sizable number of comic readers. I don't pick up everything she writes, i.e. Dynamite's RED SONJA series, but I do try to keep a lookout when a new series, or new writing assignment from her, is out. And, generally, she is all aces, except here!
This was a re-read for me, as I was reading BATMAN: DEATH OF THE FAMILY (which was AWESOME, btw!), and I wanted to get the whole story. I don't know what happened, but it just started to get on m nerves! I really, truly wanted to enjoy the second time, but just felt like bland potato salad!
Daniel Sampere's art, on the other hand, was flawless. All the characters, as well as the backgrounds, looked hella tight! I found myself more into the art that the actual story!
I am not 100% sure why I didn't like it. Mostly, I felt some of the characterizations were off, leaving to not give a fart about any of them! That right there is what makes a book, regardless of whether a comic or an actual prose work, the characters have to stand out and make you actually interested in them! Without factor, you have a book that will fail to attract attention, and ultimately, will fail, falling quite flat!
Ok, this is my closing part. This is where I give my final grade, as well as recommending, or trashing, the book being reviewed. Not gonna do it this time round! I want to say that you, yourself, should read this trade, seeing if you like it as much as the others seemed to, k'?
Gail Simone is a favorite writer of mine, as well as a sizable number of comic readers. I don't pick up everything she writes, i.e. Dynamite's RED SONJA series, but I do try to keep a lookout when a new series, or new writing assignment from her, is out. And, generally, she is all aces, except here!
This was a re-read for me, as I was reading BATMAN: DEATH OF THE FAMILY (which was AWESOME, btw!), and I wanted to get the whole story. I don't know what happened, but it just started to get on m nerves! I really, truly wanted to enjoy the second time, but just felt like bland potato salad!
Daniel Sampere's art, on the other hand, was flawless. All the characters, as well as the backgrounds, looked hella tight! I found myself more into the art that the actual story!
I am not 100% sure why I didn't like it. Mostly, I felt some of the characterizations were off, leaving to not give a fart about any of them! That right there is what makes a book, regardless of whether a comic or an actual prose work, the characters have to stand out and make you actually interested in them! Without factor, you have a book that will fail to attract attention, and ultimately, will fail, falling quite flat!
Ok, this is my closing part. This is where I give my final grade, as well as recommending, or trashing, the book being reviewed. Not gonna do it this time round! I want to say that you, yourself, should read this trade, seeing if you like it as much as the others seemed to, k'?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
At this point I feel like I've grown u with definitive versions of Robin Hood. Kevin Costner will always be a front runner, and Disney's foxified version brings a smile to my face every time. I was also lucky to have been shown Robin Hood Men In Tights when I was younger and will always appreciate Cary Elwes' rendition. Errol Flynn will always be the high point for class in the role. There's always that one we don't talk about... Russell Crowe, I'm looking at you. We probably should consider the small screen as well, after all should we be excluding Robin from Madi Marian and Her Merry Men?
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Hourglass (Hourglass, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Let me just say right now that I'm glad I didn't judge this book by its cover, because I never would have requested it. The cover doesn't particularly appeal to me; for that matter, the title didn't make me curious either. Even after I read the back cover I wasn't convinced. I like to be intrigued and the cover/summary fooled me. But I saw a good review for it somewhere, so I snatched it up. I'm very happy I did.
Time travel has been done poorly so many times, but Hourglass was fantastic. It was original and creative, and it met every requirement for a perfect book: it had tension, awesome characters, a well thought out and multi-layered plot, and good writing.
There was tension in every sentence of ever paragraph of every chapter. It was nearly impossible to put down. I completely lost track of time while I read it. (haha, lost track of…get it?…. it's a time travel book…never mind.) I was forced to put it down to do things like work and chores and food, but except for things like that, it kept me reading, and there were no empty scenes.
The characters were amazing. Can I just say that I want to marry Michael right now? omigoodness. He's going on my list. Any author who can write a character like that is going on my favorites list right now. Emerson is strong-willed, kick-ass, and has to remind herself that she's short because her personality is the opposite. She was the perfect heroine because she was real and fragile and head over heels in love with someone she wasn't supposed to love. Michael was the brave proud chivalrous attractive protagonist who has a major hero complex, and of course is trying not to be in love with Em (and failing miserably). Both of them together had humorous conversations and explosive chemistry. (like, things short circuit when they touch, and light bulbs break when they kiss.)
The plot kept me guessing all the way to the end, and the last quarter of the book threw so many twists and turns at me that I found myself thinking, "Ok wait, what? are you serious?" But it wasn't overdone, there was no overkill, and it worked perfectly in the end. (I'll keep it spoiler free, but I'll just say don't worry, it does work out. Don't get mad and throw the book against the wall like I did.)
And of course, the writing. I find that many young adult novels have mediocre writing. McEntire is a good writer in the sense that she can keep the tension real and controlling, she has good descriptions and great pacing, and there are no dead words.
Hourglass was fast-paced, exciting, unique, and completely enthralling. I anxiously await more from McEntire hope for more of Michael and Emerson's story in the future.
Content/recommendation: some mild language, no sex. Ages 16+
Time travel has been done poorly so many times, but Hourglass was fantastic. It was original and creative, and it met every requirement for a perfect book: it had tension, awesome characters, a well thought out and multi-layered plot, and good writing.
There was tension in every sentence of ever paragraph of every chapter. It was nearly impossible to put down. I completely lost track of time while I read it. (haha, lost track of…get it?…. it's a time travel book…never mind.) I was forced to put it down to do things like work and chores and food, but except for things like that, it kept me reading, and there were no empty scenes.
The characters were amazing. Can I just say that I want to marry Michael right now? omigoodness. He's going on my list. Any author who can write a character like that is going on my favorites list right now. Emerson is strong-willed, kick-ass, and has to remind herself that she's short because her personality is the opposite. She was the perfect heroine because she was real and fragile and head over heels in love with someone she wasn't supposed to love. Michael was the brave proud chivalrous attractive protagonist who has a major hero complex, and of course is trying not to be in love with Em (and failing miserably). Both of them together had humorous conversations and explosive chemistry. (like, things short circuit when they touch, and light bulbs break when they kiss.)
The plot kept me guessing all the way to the end, and the last quarter of the book threw so many twists and turns at me that I found myself thinking, "Ok wait, what? are you serious?" But it wasn't overdone, there was no overkill, and it worked perfectly in the end. (I'll keep it spoiler free, but I'll just say don't worry, it does work out. Don't get mad and throw the book against the wall like I did.)
And of course, the writing. I find that many young adult novels have mediocre writing. McEntire is a good writer in the sense that she can keep the tension real and controlling, she has good descriptions and great pacing, and there are no dead words.
Hourglass was fast-paced, exciting, unique, and completely enthralling. I anxiously await more from McEntire hope for more of Michael and Emerson's story in the future.
Content/recommendation: some mild language, no sex. Ages 16+
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Oct 25, 2019 (Updated Nov 5, 2019)
Amazingly average, wholly unessecary
Here we have a reboot of a mildly popular film franchise, based on a video game that is a reboot of a hugely beloved game series.
To sum up Tomb Raider in brief - if you are a fan of the original games, and don't really like the direction the recent games have taken, there is probably nothing here that will interest you.
If you are a fan of the recent game series, then you are probably better off just playing those instead of watching the movie adaption.
The film itself isn't terrible by any means, it's just completely bland and forgettable.
The plot is a run of the mill treasure hunting escapade, which we have seen countless times before, and done much better, with irrelevant side plots that bog down an already boring plot.
The action is so so, with some nice stunt work scattered here and there.
Alicia Vikander seems bored herself - I think as a movie, Tomb Raider is (very slightly) more credible than than the early 2000 efforts, but I do think the character of Lara Croft benefits from Angelina Jolie's charm.
It's like the writers couldn't decide whether to adapt the inexperienced and fighting-to-survive Lara Croft from the reboot series, or the more confident, one-liner Lara Croft from the original series, resulting in a flat adaption of either one.
All of the other characters involved are just as flat, so much so that I genuinely can't remember any of their names, or even who played them, with the exception of Dominic West - that dude is just in everything.
The script doesn't help matters one bit, threatening to put you to sleep at any given moment, and riddled with unintentionally funny Hollywood rubbish.
In summary, Tomb Raider can join the ever growing festering pile of dissapointment that are video game movies. (Except you Detective Pikachu, we love you <3)
To sum up Tomb Raider in brief - if you are a fan of the original games, and don't really like the direction the recent games have taken, there is probably nothing here that will interest you.
If you are a fan of the recent game series, then you are probably better off just playing those instead of watching the movie adaption.
The film itself isn't terrible by any means, it's just completely bland and forgettable.
The plot is a run of the mill treasure hunting escapade, which we have seen countless times before, and done much better, with irrelevant side plots that bog down an already boring plot.
The action is so so, with some nice stunt work scattered here and there.
Alicia Vikander seems bored herself - I think as a movie, Tomb Raider is (very slightly) more credible than than the early 2000 efforts, but I do think the character of Lara Croft benefits from Angelina Jolie's charm.
It's like the writers couldn't decide whether to adapt the inexperienced and fighting-to-survive Lara Croft from the reboot series, or the more confident, one-liner Lara Croft from the original series, resulting in a flat adaption of either one.
All of the other characters involved are just as flat, so much so that I genuinely can't remember any of their names, or even who played them, with the exception of Dominic West - that dude is just in everything.
The script doesn't help matters one bit, threatening to put you to sleep at any given moment, and riddled with unintentionally funny Hollywood rubbish.
In summary, Tomb Raider can join the ever growing festering pile of dissapointment that are video game movies. (Except you Detective Pikachu, we love you <3)
Dean (6927 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 19, 2019 (Updated Jul 19, 2019)
Same story with different visuals
Yet another re-imaging update of a Disney classic. People will always have quite varied reactions to these films depending in how high regard they hold the original. So far they have been a bit hit and miss, with Dumbo the worst for me. This is more in line with the Jungle book, with the same director. The story is pretty much exactly the same as the original. The difference is the amazing life like animation of the animals. So good it will feel like a nature documentary at times, waiting for David Attenborough to narrate over.
The voice cast is OK with only James Earl Jones voice standing out as he has such a commanding tone. The songs were just ok for me and I think this is where most people might be disappointed with this version. Overall it's a good story still given a technically excellent make-over. Just maybe lacking a little charm here and there.
The voice cast is OK with only James Earl Jones voice standing out as he has such a commanding tone. The songs were just ok for me and I think this is where most people might be disappointed with this version. Overall it's a good story still given a technically excellent make-over. Just maybe lacking a little charm here and there.
Lou Grande (148 KP) rated SuperFly (2018) in Movies
Jun 27, 2018
Stick to the original
Something just didn't translate here. From the '70s to the current time, culture has changed, and so has drug habits. I was sitting in the theater wondering what city in the States has a cocaine flow like that, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.
The plot is basically the same: drug heists, setups, betrayals. It just sort of fell flat. Priest ended up looking more like a hipster that hangs around Starbucks, not Superfly. His hairstyle (a rather pronounced side-parted quiff) ended up looking silly. And speaking of silly, the sex scene was slightly comedic. It felt shoe-horned in. It doesn't quite flow in the context of the film. And one of the actresses obviously didn't get paid enough to go topless, so they used trick angles to cover her breasts. Normally I wouldn't complain (you do you), but it doesn't fit with the genre of film.
I don't know. Everything fell flat to me. It didn't even have anything to laugh at.
The plot is basically the same: drug heists, setups, betrayals. It just sort of fell flat. Priest ended up looking more like a hipster that hangs around Starbucks, not Superfly. His hairstyle (a rather pronounced side-parted quiff) ended up looking silly. And speaking of silly, the sex scene was slightly comedic. It felt shoe-horned in. It doesn't quite flow in the context of the film. And one of the actresses obviously didn't get paid enough to go topless, so they used trick angles to cover her breasts. Normally I wouldn't complain (you do you), but it doesn't fit with the genre of film.
I don't know. Everything fell flat to me. It didn't even have anything to laugh at.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Feb 24, 2020
Can Talk To The Fish
Im not a huge fan of the DCU, i didnt like Man of Steel, Hated Batman vs. Superman, hated Sucide Squad, didnt like Wonder Woman. I havent seen Justice League. So expections for Aquaman was really low. Thats why i didnt see it when it came out and i didnt see it in 2019. So finally in 2020, i finally saw Aquaman and what did i think, it was okay. I really liked Patrick Wilson as the villian, you dont see him in to many villian roles. I actually think he was the best part of this whole film. Yes you heard that right, the best part of this whole film.
Too much GCI, the action was off at many points, the acting for the other cast was terrible/bad. I mean some of the CGI was good, the rest was terrible and Black Mantis was bad. James Wan should just really stick to horror. Cause he is excellent in that.
You can just skip this film overall.
Too much GCI, the action was off at many points, the acting for the other cast was terrible/bad. I mean some of the CGI was good, the rest was terrible and Black Mantis was bad. James Wan should just really stick to horror. Cause he is excellent in that.
You can just skip this film overall.
Becs (244 KP) rated A Wrinkle in Time in Books
Oct 2, 2019
Genre: Fiction, literary classic, children’s, young adult, science fiction.
Audience: children – young adult.
Reading level: middle school.
Interests: science fiction, fantasy, mythical creatures
Style: Fantasy Sci-Fi
Point of view: Third Person with a mix of first person.
Difficulty reading: Not at all! As easy as eating a piece of cake.
Promise: Ground-breaking science fiction.
Quality: Like a banana split with extra sprinkles and a cherry on top on a hot day. 🙂
Insights: I absolutely kick myself in the a** for the not reading this sooner. I think everybody should read it, no matter how old you are. And I didn’t know it was part of a 5 book series until today! SAY WHATTTT!!!??? I’m definitely purchasing the complete series brand new (the copy I have is my mother’s and it’s old and ragedy).
Ah-Ha Moment: THE ENTIRE BOOK. No joke. Like I wasn’t expecting the main character to be a girl, let alone so young and to have such an ordinary family. You don’t see that typically!
Favorite Quotes: “Like and equal are not the same thing at all.” – This is great, especially with our history as human beings. We need to be seen as equals not just ‘like’.
“Life, with its rules, its obligations, and its freedoms, is like a sonnet: You’re given the form, but you have to write the sonnet yourself.” – Be true to yourself, for there is nobody like you in the entire universe.
“Experiment is the mother of knowledge.” – You can’t just go into life expecting to know everything and how it’s all going to end. You have to experiment because then you gain the knowledge that others may have not known.
Aesthetics: My old first edition copy has a really neat cover, it’s what drew me in originally. I loved the take on the story and how in my mind, I can actually imagine the different characters and their surroundings. It’s a weird yet interesting book.
“People are more than just the way they look.”
Audience: children – young adult.
Reading level: middle school.
Interests: science fiction, fantasy, mythical creatures
Style: Fantasy Sci-Fi
Point of view: Third Person with a mix of first person.
Difficulty reading: Not at all! As easy as eating a piece of cake.
Promise: Ground-breaking science fiction.
Quality: Like a banana split with extra sprinkles and a cherry on top on a hot day. 🙂
Insights: I absolutely kick myself in the a** for the not reading this sooner. I think everybody should read it, no matter how old you are. And I didn’t know it was part of a 5 book series until today! SAY WHATTTT!!!??? I’m definitely purchasing the complete series brand new (the copy I have is my mother’s and it’s old and ragedy).
Ah-Ha Moment: THE ENTIRE BOOK. No joke. Like I wasn’t expecting the main character to be a girl, let alone so young and to have such an ordinary family. You don’t see that typically!
Favorite Quotes: “Like and equal are not the same thing at all.” – This is great, especially with our history as human beings. We need to be seen as equals not just ‘like’.
“Life, with its rules, its obligations, and its freedoms, is like a sonnet: You’re given the form, but you have to write the sonnet yourself.” – Be true to yourself, for there is nobody like you in the entire universe.
“Experiment is the mother of knowledge.” – You can’t just go into life expecting to know everything and how it’s all going to end. You have to experiment because then you gain the knowledge that others may have not known.
Aesthetics: My old first edition copy has a really neat cover, it’s what drew me in originally. I loved the take on the story and how in my mind, I can actually imagine the different characters and their surroundings. It’s a weird yet interesting book.
“People are more than just the way they look.”
