Search
Bad, Dad, And Dangerous Anthology
Rhys Ford, TA Moore, Bru Baker and Jenn Moffatt
8.5
Rate It
Book
Bad, Dad, and Dangerous Anthology When the kids are away, the monsters will play. School’s out...
Paranormal Romance MM MF
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Great but disappointing
Frank Sheeran starts in humble beginnings driving a meat truck while trying to make a living to support his family. He takes the favor of the right connect mobsters and quickly rises through the ranks to become one of its elite. He perpetrates countless villainous activities including murder, bribery, extortion and general unpleasantness toward his fellow man to the point where it almost becomes routine.
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The X Files: I Want to Believe (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It has been over six years since the popular and groundbreaking series, “The X-Files” went off the air leaving some of the series biggest questions unresolved. There was always talk that future films would resolve the alien conspiracy and invasion plotline that fueled the nine seasons of the show, but as time went on, many fans began to wonder if that storyline like so many of the cases Mulder and Scully investigated would remain unanswered.
A dispute between Fox and series creator Chris Carter was often listed as one of the main reasons that the second film had not arrived and thankfully with the resolution of the dispute and the pending writers strike, the new film was approved by the studio and placed into production.
The film picks up years after the series and finds both Mulder (David Duchovny), and Scully (Gillian Anderson), living with one another in a remote home in a rural area. The fact that Mulder is still a wanted man has forced him to lead a life of seclusion, but he still collects newspaper clippings related to bizarre happenings to feed his fascination with the supernatural.
Scully leads a more conventional life, as she has left the F.B.I. to return to her career as a Doctor in a local Catholic hospital.
Scully has been struggling to treat a young boy with a series condition that many of her superiors believe is a lost cause. As if this was not enough concern, Scully is approached by an F.B.I. agent named Agent Drummy (Xzibit), who informs Scully that the F.B.I. is in need of Mulder’s services in finding a missing agent.
Suspecting a trap to lure out Mulder, Scully refutes any knowledge of Mulder, but relays the information to a skeptical and bitter Mulder. The F.B.I. is willing to drop all charges against Mulder and despite his bitterness over his frame up, he agrees simply to help find the agent and clear his name.
Mulder and Scully are introduced to Agent Whitney (Amanda Peet), who is heading the investigation to recover the missing agent. Whitney has ruffled a few feathers at the bureau to bring Mulder back into the mix, but due to some odd facts of the case, and their own lack of leads, they believe Mulder may be the key to unraveling the mystery.
Mulder and Scully soon find themselves in a snow covered, remote area of Virginia where they must content not only with the elements but an ever changing case.
It is learned that a disgraced priest named Father Joe (Billy Connolly), is having psychic visions of the missing agent, and Mulder is tasked with not only helping find the missing agent, but determining the truth behind the visions of Father Joe.
As the case takes one bizarre twist after another, Scully becomes concerned over Mulder’s obsession with the case, as she worries that they are going to lose the new life they have had with one another, and once again be dragged into the old lifestyle they shared, that not only consumed them both, but cost both of them great hardships and suffering.
Scully believes that Father Joe is a sick individual who is faking the visions as his way to atone for his past sins, and believes that her time would be better spent caring for her patient and with Mulder.
Unwilling to let it go, Mulder is determined to find the truth, and will risk everything to uncover the mystery before him.
Writer/Director Chris Carter is to be praised as “The X-Files: I want to Believe” is a daring effort. Carter chose to ignore the standard movie trappings of being bigger and better and toned down the FX and action of the film to instead focus on a more intimate and character driven story.
Carter gambled that the chemistry between Duchovny and Anderson would not only attract fans, but would sustain the film without having to rely on an abundance of gimmicks. To this extent the film succeeds very well as the report between the two leads is amazing and it is a treat to see them both reprising their roles and underscoring that there is still a lot of life left in the characters.
Some may complain that the movie is little more than an extended episode and does not have the action, FX, nor eeriness to have this compare with some of the more memorable moments of the series, but to do so I believe would undermine this very worthy effort.
The film is not only a very clever character driven drama, it has plenty of subtle nods and gems for fans of the series, but holds up extremely well as a stand alone story for those not well versed in the series and it’s many complexities.
The final segment of the film truly shines as not only does it have an ending worthy of some of the best moments of the show, but it challenges the audience with questions of fate, faith, and the nature of life and the roles we are chosen to play.
From the solid acting, eerie locales and lighting and interesting themes of the film, this is a solid and enjoyable film. I only hope we do not have to wait so long for the next one.
A dispute between Fox and series creator Chris Carter was often listed as one of the main reasons that the second film had not arrived and thankfully with the resolution of the dispute and the pending writers strike, the new film was approved by the studio and placed into production.
The film picks up years after the series and finds both Mulder (David Duchovny), and Scully (Gillian Anderson), living with one another in a remote home in a rural area. The fact that Mulder is still a wanted man has forced him to lead a life of seclusion, but he still collects newspaper clippings related to bizarre happenings to feed his fascination with the supernatural.
Scully leads a more conventional life, as she has left the F.B.I. to return to her career as a Doctor in a local Catholic hospital.
Scully has been struggling to treat a young boy with a series condition that many of her superiors believe is a lost cause. As if this was not enough concern, Scully is approached by an F.B.I. agent named Agent Drummy (Xzibit), who informs Scully that the F.B.I. is in need of Mulder’s services in finding a missing agent.
Suspecting a trap to lure out Mulder, Scully refutes any knowledge of Mulder, but relays the information to a skeptical and bitter Mulder. The F.B.I. is willing to drop all charges against Mulder and despite his bitterness over his frame up, he agrees simply to help find the agent and clear his name.
Mulder and Scully are introduced to Agent Whitney (Amanda Peet), who is heading the investigation to recover the missing agent. Whitney has ruffled a few feathers at the bureau to bring Mulder back into the mix, but due to some odd facts of the case, and their own lack of leads, they believe Mulder may be the key to unraveling the mystery.
Mulder and Scully soon find themselves in a snow covered, remote area of Virginia where they must content not only with the elements but an ever changing case.
It is learned that a disgraced priest named Father Joe (Billy Connolly), is having psychic visions of the missing agent, and Mulder is tasked with not only helping find the missing agent, but determining the truth behind the visions of Father Joe.
As the case takes one bizarre twist after another, Scully becomes concerned over Mulder’s obsession with the case, as she worries that they are going to lose the new life they have had with one another, and once again be dragged into the old lifestyle they shared, that not only consumed them both, but cost both of them great hardships and suffering.
Scully believes that Father Joe is a sick individual who is faking the visions as his way to atone for his past sins, and believes that her time would be better spent caring for her patient and with Mulder.
Unwilling to let it go, Mulder is determined to find the truth, and will risk everything to uncover the mystery before him.
Writer/Director Chris Carter is to be praised as “The X-Files: I want to Believe” is a daring effort. Carter chose to ignore the standard movie trappings of being bigger and better and toned down the FX and action of the film to instead focus on a more intimate and character driven story.
Carter gambled that the chemistry between Duchovny and Anderson would not only attract fans, but would sustain the film without having to rely on an abundance of gimmicks. To this extent the film succeeds very well as the report between the two leads is amazing and it is a treat to see them both reprising their roles and underscoring that there is still a lot of life left in the characters.
Some may complain that the movie is little more than an extended episode and does not have the action, FX, nor eeriness to have this compare with some of the more memorable moments of the series, but to do so I believe would undermine this very worthy effort.
The film is not only a very clever character driven drama, it has plenty of subtle nods and gems for fans of the series, but holds up extremely well as a stand alone story for those not well versed in the series and it’s many complexities.
The final segment of the film truly shines as not only does it have an ending worthy of some of the best moments of the show, but it challenges the audience with questions of fate, faith, and the nature of life and the roles we are chosen to play.
From the solid acting, eerie locales and lighting and interesting themes of the film, this is a solid and enjoyable film. I only hope we do not have to wait so long for the next one.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Death to 2020 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
The annual event of Charlie Brooker’s Yearly Wipe is the one piece of satire I have been sure not to miss over the years. But 2020 has been a bit different, and finding himself in lockdown like everyone else, Brooker re-imagines the format into a full on talking-heads mockumentary that does away with himself as host in favour of a cross Atlantic vibe and a narration from the bass tones of Laurence Fishburne, no less.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
Jamie (131 KP) rated Dangerous Behavior in Books
May 24, 2017
Extremely slow start (1 more)
Heavy focus on the romance can be off-putting
Killer Couples
I could almost tag this book as a straight up romance given how much time is dedicated to Sam and Jules’ love story. While the romance could be a good hook for some I personally just found it distracting and kind of eye roll worthy. Sam and Jules were high school sweethearts, Sam cheats, and after getting dumped Jules finds her way into the arms of his brother, who took care of her through her family troubles. The book spends an inordinate amount of time on Sam’s miserable love life and how he never got over his first love despite a plethora of women throwing themselves at him. This made the earlier parts of the novel slow down to a crawl as the narrative focus was more about the romance than the actual murder.
It got worse when Jules started getting her memory back and remembers nothing of the love she shared with her husband and instead keeps thinking about Sam and all the great sex they had. Days after her husband is murdered. I groaned. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised and it’s predictable, it’s just so distasteful and was just sort of a big middle finger to Sam’s brother Joe. I couldn’t get behind the romance in the story at all and it really decreased my enjoyment. So much that I actually was really struggling to like the book and had been thinking about rating it lower until I got to the second half of the book.
Thank goodness for the second half, when the mystery really started to come together. The thrill killers were an interesting pair that bring to mind several serial killer couples. It was a confusing twist on an otherwise average murder mystery and at first I had been wondering why they were even in the story at all. As I dug deeper into the story, however, things pulled together nicely and I actually found these characters to be pretty interesting.
This was the part of the book that was actually good, and the ending alone convinced me to push my rating just a little bit higher. It was worth slogging through the romance to get to the good stuff. While I found certain parts predictable and had figured out the dastardly duo immediately when they were introduced I still enjoyed unraveling the mystery and finding a few surprises along the way.
It got worse when Jules started getting her memory back and remembers nothing of the love she shared with her husband and instead keeps thinking about Sam and all the great sex they had. Days after her husband is murdered. I groaned. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised and it’s predictable, it’s just so distasteful and was just sort of a big middle finger to Sam’s brother Joe. I couldn’t get behind the romance in the story at all and it really decreased my enjoyment. So much that I actually was really struggling to like the book and had been thinking about rating it lower until I got to the second half of the book.
Thank goodness for the second half, when the mystery really started to come together. The thrill killers were an interesting pair that bring to mind several serial killer couples. It was a confusing twist on an otherwise average murder mystery and at first I had been wondering why they were even in the story at all. As I dug deeper into the story, however, things pulled together nicely and I actually found these characters to be pretty interesting.
This was the part of the book that was actually good, and the ending alone convinced me to push my rating just a little bit higher. It was worth slogging through the romance to get to the good stuff. While I found certain parts predictable and had figured out the dastardly duo immediately when they were introduced I still enjoyed unraveling the mystery and finding a few surprises along the way.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the magic? Where's the sparkle?
The mesmerising story of Peter Pan has been told by numerous directors, playwrights and novelists over the years with Disney’s brilliant animation being one of the highlights in a series of standout moments.
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Grim Company in Books
Nov 14, 2019
The Grim Company aims to deliver a swords and sorcery tail in the epic mould while being gritty, grimy and dirty in detail. And to a very large extent it suceeds, managing to tell a tale of war between city states from the point of view of some of the characters cauught up in it.
One thing that is always hard to do when starting out on a new story is to get used to the characters. The author must balance the need to ensure that enough time is spent to flesh out each character as they are introduced without overwhelming the reader and Scull is adept at this, the first few chapters detailing some of the misadventures, goals and dreams of the main characters.
And what characters they are. Cole is a young hero with a magical blade, who's destiny is to free the city of Dorminia from the tyrant Salazar, while at the same time being a real catch for any pretty girls. Or so he sees himself. To everyone else he is vain, boastful and arrogant. Jerek is a barbarian who has the market cornered in foul language, pithy insults and scowling at everything. Also good is Barandas, head of the elite guard of the city who is just trying to do his job.
The obvious author to compare Scull to is Joe Abercrombie, and the comparison is a fair one although (in this book) Scull doesn't quite manage to create the depth and range in Abercrombie's characters and situations. So although they aren't really classic fantasy archetypes, they are still close and don't subvert them. What Scull does bring is a little less cynicism than Abercrombie. Here it is worth fighting for what you believe is right, and honour still has value. This gives it a rather refreshing feeling.
The book also has strength in being the first of a series so it doesn't have to be a stand alone story and can leave enough threads for the next book to pick up. This allows the end, after a frenetic climactic battle, to relax into telling the aftermath rather than spending too much time trying to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall a good book for the fantasy lover. Not as grim or dark as 'grimdark' but still with enough spit and sawdust to add an underbelly to the reliable fantasy concepts it should appeal to a wide audience.
Rated: Strong language, bloody violence and some sexual references throughout
One thing that is always hard to do when starting out on a new story is to get used to the characters. The author must balance the need to ensure that enough time is spent to flesh out each character as they are introduced without overwhelming the reader and Scull is adept at this, the first few chapters detailing some of the misadventures, goals and dreams of the main characters.
And what characters they are. Cole is a young hero with a magical blade, who's destiny is to free the city of Dorminia from the tyrant Salazar, while at the same time being a real catch for any pretty girls. Or so he sees himself. To everyone else he is vain, boastful and arrogant. Jerek is a barbarian who has the market cornered in foul language, pithy insults and scowling at everything. Also good is Barandas, head of the elite guard of the city who is just trying to do his job.
The obvious author to compare Scull to is Joe Abercrombie, and the comparison is a fair one although (in this book) Scull doesn't quite manage to create the depth and range in Abercrombie's characters and situations. So although they aren't really classic fantasy archetypes, they are still close and don't subvert them. What Scull does bring is a little less cynicism than Abercrombie. Here it is worth fighting for what you believe is right, and honour still has value. This gives it a rather refreshing feeling.
The book also has strength in being the first of a series so it doesn't have to be a stand alone story and can leave enough threads for the next book to pick up. This allows the end, after a frenetic climactic battle, to relax into telling the aftermath rather than spending too much time trying to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall a good book for the fantasy lover. Not as grim or dark as 'grimdark' but still with enough spit and sawdust to add an underbelly to the reliable fantasy concepts it should appeal to a wide audience.
Rated: Strong language, bloody violence and some sexual references throughout
Justice Denied: Extraordinary Miscarriages of Justice
Book
An incisive examination by the bestselling author of The Mammoth Book of Gangs of some of the many...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
And so to the latest incarnation in Spider-man Homecoming. After seeing Tom Holland in Civil War, well, let's just say that I was not convinced. Then the adverts where he's making the home movie of everything... yeah that began to grate a bit.
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
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 Leland’s point of view and the story could have benefited from being told from multiple perspectives: Leland’s, the terrorists and the hostages. Unfortunately, the terrorists’ motive is summed up in one page and it doesn’t 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. It’s 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.
Thorp’s 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 it’ll be over before you have the time to really dislike him.
Read this if you haven’t 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 Leland’s point of view and the story could have benefited from being told from multiple perspectives: Leland’s, the terrorists and the hostages. Unfortunately, the terrorists’ motive is summed up in one page and it doesn’t 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. It’s 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.
Thorp’s 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 it’ll be over before you have the time to really dislike him.
Read this if you haven’t 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.
