Search
Search results
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.
ArecRain (8 KP) rated Servant: The Kindred (Servant, #3) in Books
Jan 18, 2018
I almost feel bad having this series as my first review since I have absolutely nothing good to say about this book, or the series for that matter. Every element of this book was just terrible, from the language to the plot development, or lack thereof.
By the time I came to the final novel in the Servant trilogy, I quite literally had to force myself to read every page. Unlike the first two, where I became hooked on a goal that Gabrielle Cody was trying to reach, this book just grossed me out, bored me, and irritated me when I wasnt bored. After the first chapter, I lost any hope that this novel was an improvement on the first two.
The foul language was so excessive that I noticed myself just passing over it like you would the word the or and. The fact that Gaby couldnt form a sentence without saying the f-word seemed a bit juvenile to me. Fosters attempt to make Gaby seem uneducated is contradicted when she randomly uses words like cathartic. It was out of her character.
The characters were more frustrating in this novel than in the previous ones. Gaby and Luthers arguing left me so annoyed that, at times, I just skipped over it. I could not understand why Luther was so obsessed with her since any normal person probably would just ignored her from the get go. However, I felt that Gabys character had become more realistic in her feelings and thoughts. I actually liked that Gaby was so jealous of Ann, Luthers partner who is perfect in every way. I also liked the relationship she forms with Bliss, a ex-prostitute that Gaby saved from the streets, and the two orphans that Gaby takes under her wing.
The biggest problem I have with this series is the pedestal that Foster place Gaby upon. Foster makes her protagonist so strong and unbeatable that, more than once, I thought that the author was trying to make Gaby a god on earth. Gaby only obtains one injury through the entire novel, a bullet wound that is used to further the plot. Without the bullet wound, Gaby would have never gone to get a tattoo. Nobody can touch Gaby, something I found not only a nuascance but unlikely.
The final noteworthy thing about this book, is that we discover Gaby ancestry. I felt appeased in my search for discovering more about Gabys past and parents. Any surprise I had about her parentage was nullified by Fosters writing style.
I do believe I have complained enough about this series. I did have hope for it but was disappointed. After reading such an unpleasing series, I am going to read a book I know I should end up enjoying.
By the time I came to the final novel in the Servant trilogy, I quite literally had to force myself to read every page. Unlike the first two, where I became hooked on a goal that Gabrielle Cody was trying to reach, this book just grossed me out, bored me, and irritated me when I wasnt bored. After the first chapter, I lost any hope that this novel was an improvement on the first two.
The foul language was so excessive that I noticed myself just passing over it like you would the word the or and. The fact that Gaby couldnt form a sentence without saying the f-word seemed a bit juvenile to me. Fosters attempt to make Gaby seem uneducated is contradicted when she randomly uses words like cathartic. It was out of her character.
The characters were more frustrating in this novel than in the previous ones. Gaby and Luthers arguing left me so annoyed that, at times, I just skipped over it. I could not understand why Luther was so obsessed with her since any normal person probably would just ignored her from the get go. However, I felt that Gabys character had become more realistic in her feelings and thoughts. I actually liked that Gaby was so jealous of Ann, Luthers partner who is perfect in every way. I also liked the relationship she forms with Bliss, a ex-prostitute that Gaby saved from the streets, and the two orphans that Gaby takes under her wing.
The biggest problem I have with this series is the pedestal that Foster place Gaby upon. Foster makes her protagonist so strong and unbeatable that, more than once, I thought that the author was trying to make Gaby a god on earth. Gaby only obtains one injury through the entire novel, a bullet wound that is used to further the plot. Without the bullet wound, Gaby would have never gone to get a tattoo. Nobody can touch Gaby, something I found not only a nuascance but unlikely.
The final noteworthy thing about this book, is that we discover Gaby ancestry. I felt appeased in my search for discovering more about Gabys past and parents. Any surprise I had about her parentage was nullified by Fosters writing style.
I do believe I have complained enough about this series. I did have hope for it but was disappointed. After reading such an unpleasing series, I am going to read a book I know I should end up enjoying.
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.
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)
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.”
Kevin Morby recommended track Goodbye Sadness by Yoko Ono in Season of Glass by Yoko Ono in Music (curated)
Adam Ant recommended New York Dolls by New York Dolls in Music (curated)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Monster Hunter (2020) in Movies
Feb 24, 2021
Absolutely Disastrous
Monster Hunter is the 15th feature film directed by Paul WS Anderson and is based on a popular gaming franchise of the same name. This is not Anderson’s first attempt at a video game movie, as he is arguably best known for giving us the Resident Evil movie series and the 1995 version of Mortal Kombat.
As is the case with the examples above, this film is in no way faithful to the source material. I am not a huge fan of the Monster Hunter games but I have played enough of them to know that they are nothing like what we get in this generic action movie filled to the brim with clichés. Frankly, this movie runs the gamut of mid 2000’s mediocre action film clichés like it is following a formula from a textbook.
When reviewing any movie, – even one as trashy as this, – I always try to find some positives before tearing through the poor elements, but I am genuinely struggling to find anything here that didn’t annoy me or make me cringe. Even the one thing that you would think would be a positive, – the fact that the movie’s runtime is only 103 minutes long, – still isn’t a positive because the film still manages to feel so long and dragged out.
Anderson is a decent director, I know this from Event Horizon and the first Resident Evil film, but at this point in his career it genuinely seems like he isn’t even trying anymore. I’m honestly convinced at this point that the guy just looks at the box art for whatever video game series he is adapting and decides that is all of the research that he has to do.
The technical aspects of this movie are garbage. The editing is abrupt and extremely cheesy with no flow or cohesion, just a ton of hard crash zooms and awkward transitions. The score sounds like royalty free suspense stock music that a freelancer might download for background music for a low budget Youtube video.
Read the rest of my review at: https://www.bigglasgowcomicpage.com/2021/02/18/review-monster-hunter-movie/
As is the case with the examples above, this film is in no way faithful to the source material. I am not a huge fan of the Monster Hunter games but I have played enough of them to know that they are nothing like what we get in this generic action movie filled to the brim with clichés. Frankly, this movie runs the gamut of mid 2000’s mediocre action film clichés like it is following a formula from a textbook.
When reviewing any movie, – even one as trashy as this, – I always try to find some positives before tearing through the poor elements, but I am genuinely struggling to find anything here that didn’t annoy me or make me cringe. Even the one thing that you would think would be a positive, – the fact that the movie’s runtime is only 103 minutes long, – still isn’t a positive because the film still manages to feel so long and dragged out.
Anderson is a decent director, I know this from Event Horizon and the first Resident Evil film, but at this point in his career it genuinely seems like he isn’t even trying anymore. I’m honestly convinced at this point that the guy just looks at the box art for whatever video game series he is adapting and decides that is all of the research that he has to do.
The technical aspects of this movie are garbage. The editing is abrupt and extremely cheesy with no flow or cohesion, just a ton of hard crash zooms and awkward transitions. The score sounds like royalty free suspense stock music that a freelancer might download for background music for a low budget Youtube video.
Read the rest of my review at: https://www.bigglasgowcomicpage.com/2021/02/18/review-monster-hunter-movie/