Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
CPR Needed
As tends to be the case with Hollywood, studios pay very close attention to their rivals release schedules, eyeing up potential competition to pit their films against, maxing box-office returns in the process.
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Road House (1989) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Very underrated
Contains spoilers, click to show
So what kind of film do you get when you have great one liners, bar fights, guns, knives, egos, strippers, blues music, a polar bear and a monster truck? You get one of the most enjoyable and entertaining films of the late 80's, Road House. The film follows James Dalton (Patrick Swayze) a cooler (bouncer) and the best in the business, as he takes employment with Frank Tilghman (Kevin Tighe) the owner of the Double Deuce in Jasper, Missouri. The bar is the roughest in town and he needs Dalton to clean it up. However corrupt business man and crime boss Brad Wesley (Ben Gazzara) stands in his way. After the classic "chick flick" Dirty Dancing, Patrick Swayze was Hollywood gold. Women loved him and men wanted to be him. The film was full of romance. Then along came Road House, a complete opposite to Dirty Dancing, a little romance and loads of action. The film has a great cast including Patrick Swayze, Kevin Tighe, Ben Gazzara, Kelly Lynch, Marshall R. Teague, Red West, Kathleen Wilhoite, John William Young, John Doe, Kurt James Stefka, Keith David & Terry Funk. The cast works well together and it is full of great performances. Naturally Patrick Swayze at the height of his career stands miles apart from the rest of the cast as Dalton. A character that can hurt you with his words just as much as his fists. Tragically, 20 years later Swayze had his life cut short by cancer. His death is still a major loss to the entertainment industry, but his legacy will live on in the great performances and memorable characters he played. The film also a features a great performance by the late great blues guitarist Jeff Healey as Cody. It's the music in the film that goes a long way to achieving the right feel for the film. Everything works well from the characters, the music to the setting. Set in a rural area the scenery is breath-taking and it is used to great effect. But it's the fight choreography that stands out from many other films. Great bar fights are pretty much a thing of the past, but here they are full of action and humour just like the classic westerns. The one on one fights are brutal, mainly for the realism they portray. The script is awesome and full of classic lines mainly from Dalton and although many are cheesy, when he says it, it feels right. The director surprisingly hasn't made many films but the ones I have seen of his I really like and I know I am in the minority. See my review of Gladiator (1992) for more by this director. This is truly a great film, although very underrated. It is also one of my personal all-time favourites. There are a couple of versions of this so ensure that you see the USA or UK version released after 2002 as these are the uncut editions. So grab a few beers and a few friends, but this on a big screen and turn the sound way up for a really great movie experience.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 100 Streets (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 100 Streets starts as we meet our characters, troublemaking drug dealing thief Kingsley (Dramah), former rugby player Max (Elba) who is going through a marriage problem after his own affair with his wife Emily (Arterton) who in an act of revenge is dating photographer Jake (Cullen). The final couple we meet are cabbie George (Creed-Miles) and Kathy (Wareing) who are trying to adopt a child, though his past is causing problems in this pursuit.
As the lives cross-paths the people must learn about the mistakes they make to prevent themselves from making any more mistakes.
Thoughts on 100 Streets
Characters – Max is a former England rugby captain, since retiring he started cheating on his wife and getting caught up with the drugs, seeing his future career going up in smoke, he needs to clean up his own actions in any hope of winning his wife back. Emily is the wife of Max who has been going through the struggles of her husbands action, thinking about getting back into acting and trying to move on with her life. Kingsley is the streetwise drug dealing thief that has been caught up against the law, even though he believes he could go onto something bigger, he receives the guidance required to escape this life. We have a cabbie that makes a terrible mistake and must learn to live with the consequences and a photographer that wants to be part of Emily’s life.
Performances – Idris Elba, Gemma Arterton are both great in their roles in the film, we know and expect it from them. Elsewhere we get the less known actors in Franz Drameh and Charlie Creed-Miles that shine in this film.
Story – The story follows the lives of three people, the problems they are facing and the changes that will define them. We get three different worlds, one is the celebrity world and marriage, where the vices can control someone, the middle-class who just want normal lives which can fall apart from past action and the lower-class that must fight for a chance or face the same circles of crime. The way the three lives cross without interaction shows how people can be going through their own struggles meters away from you. Each life will be changed by the events in the film, which is important to see and we can see how theses moments can do the moments that create a future.
Settings – The film is set in London with the idea that we are within 100 streets of each other, in a position where lives can cross paves.
Scene of the Movie – Leaving the gang.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not sure what will happen with Jake next.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderfully engaging drama that shows the lives people are living without you knowing within metres of your own life. Strong performances throughout do help the film stand out too.
Overall: Drama well worth watching.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/02/02/gemma-arterton-weekend-100-streets-2016/
As the lives cross-paths the people must learn about the mistakes they make to prevent themselves from making any more mistakes.
Thoughts on 100 Streets
Characters – Max is a former England rugby captain, since retiring he started cheating on his wife and getting caught up with the drugs, seeing his future career going up in smoke, he needs to clean up his own actions in any hope of winning his wife back. Emily is the wife of Max who has been going through the struggles of her husbands action, thinking about getting back into acting and trying to move on with her life. Kingsley is the streetwise drug dealing thief that has been caught up against the law, even though he believes he could go onto something bigger, he receives the guidance required to escape this life. We have a cabbie that makes a terrible mistake and must learn to live with the consequences and a photographer that wants to be part of Emily’s life.
Performances – Idris Elba, Gemma Arterton are both great in their roles in the film, we know and expect it from them. Elsewhere we get the less known actors in Franz Drameh and Charlie Creed-Miles that shine in this film.
Story – The story follows the lives of three people, the problems they are facing and the changes that will define them. We get three different worlds, one is the celebrity world and marriage, where the vices can control someone, the middle-class who just want normal lives which can fall apart from past action and the lower-class that must fight for a chance or face the same circles of crime. The way the three lives cross without interaction shows how people can be going through their own struggles meters away from you. Each life will be changed by the events in the film, which is important to see and we can see how theses moments can do the moments that create a future.
Settings – The film is set in London with the idea that we are within 100 streets of each other, in a position where lives can cross paves.
Scene of the Movie – Leaving the gang.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not sure what will happen with Jake next.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderfully engaging drama that shows the lives people are living without you knowing within metres of your own life. Strong performances throughout do help the film stand out too.
Overall: Drama well worth watching.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/02/02/gemma-arterton-weekend-100-streets-2016/
Snake Simulator
Games and Entertainment
App
Enter a tropical rainforest and live the life of a poisonous Snake! Explore a lush jungle filled...
The Animator’s Survival Kit
Reference and Education
App
World-renowned animator and triple-Oscar-winner Richard Williams presents ‘The Animator’s...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) in Movies
Aug 3, 2020
God-Awful
Pretty much separate from all the other movies, when youngster Sean Black goes to Japan to live with his father, he rebels and gets involved in the underground life of street racing. Since I’m on a streak of reviewing god-awful movies, I present to you The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift.
Acting: 5
Beginning: 1
The beginning puts us right in the heart of a cheesy car race. It wasn’t bad, but as I look back over the entirety of the other movies, car races are typically the one thing they get right. So, in comparison, it was actually terrible. Definitely put me in a weird kind of mood for what was to come.
Characters: 8
What the characters lacked in depth, they were at least fun characters to include in the story. If nothing else, at least it’s not Paul Walker! That alone was enough to get my seal of approval.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 5
Sure there is a motive to drive the story. Is it strong? Not really. Enough to carry a movie? It’ll do. The problem with not having characters with depth is having to rely on the action to drive the story. When there’s not enough of it, you’re in trouble.
Entertainment Value: 5
So here’s the thing: The actual drifting part was kind of cool. I also like the fact that they really make an attempt to get you involved in the Japanese world. At one point, I made the note: “I don’t hate this movie.” At some point that did change, but there was a true moment where the movie held its own for a bit.
Memorability: 3
I couldn’t tell you one memorable line from this movie. I couldn’t tell you one cool action sequence that really got me excited. All I really remember is some drifting and some beautiful Tokyo landscapes…and that’s pretty much all in the title. This is not a repeat watch type of movie.
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
The story had potential. My problem was it kept leaving out pockets of information and it never really felt like I got the full story. It was like I kept getting up to go to the bathroom and missing something crucial each time. There is way too much jumping around for my taste.
Resolution: 5
The ending left me with a mild sense of satisfaction. Even if I wasn’t late to the game and I was watching this for the first time when it was first released, I would’ve still known that there would be more movies to come. That’s what nags at me: The lack of completion. It doesn’t feel like an ending when you know it’s not over.
Overall: 52
Some movies are bad but entertaining. Case and point: The Fast and the Furious Tokyo Drift. You will hate it, but you will also walk away having seen a few solid moments as well. As much as I try and avoid this franchise at all costs, there were glimmers in these early movies that the franchise could be more than what it was. Glad they finally found their way.
Acting: 5
Beginning: 1
The beginning puts us right in the heart of a cheesy car race. It wasn’t bad, but as I look back over the entirety of the other movies, car races are typically the one thing they get right. So, in comparison, it was actually terrible. Definitely put me in a weird kind of mood for what was to come.
Characters: 8
What the characters lacked in depth, they were at least fun characters to include in the story. If nothing else, at least it’s not Paul Walker! That alone was enough to get my seal of approval.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 5
Sure there is a motive to drive the story. Is it strong? Not really. Enough to carry a movie? It’ll do. The problem with not having characters with depth is having to rely on the action to drive the story. When there’s not enough of it, you’re in trouble.
Entertainment Value: 5
So here’s the thing: The actual drifting part was kind of cool. I also like the fact that they really make an attempt to get you involved in the Japanese world. At one point, I made the note: “I don’t hate this movie.” At some point that did change, but there was a true moment where the movie held its own for a bit.
Memorability: 3
I couldn’t tell you one memorable line from this movie. I couldn’t tell you one cool action sequence that really got me excited. All I really remember is some drifting and some beautiful Tokyo landscapes…and that’s pretty much all in the title. This is not a repeat watch type of movie.
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
The story had potential. My problem was it kept leaving out pockets of information and it never really felt like I got the full story. It was like I kept getting up to go to the bathroom and missing something crucial each time. There is way too much jumping around for my taste.
Resolution: 5
The ending left me with a mild sense of satisfaction. Even if I wasn’t late to the game and I was watching this for the first time when it was first released, I would’ve still known that there would be more movies to come. That’s what nags at me: The lack of completion. It doesn’t feel like an ending when you know it’s not over.
Overall: 52
Some movies are bad but entertaining. Case and point: The Fast and the Furious Tokyo Drift. You will hate it, but you will also walk away having seen a few solid moments as well. As much as I try and avoid this franchise at all costs, there were glimmers in these early movies that the franchise could be more than what it was. Glad they finally found their way.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Mandalorian - Season 1 in TV
May 5, 2020
A live action series set in the Star Wars universe has been a long time coming and thankfully, it hit almost all the right notes.
The Mandalorian is set after the events of Return of the Jedi, where the empire is all but gone, and the titular hero is going about his business, taking bounty jobs for good pay. It's not too long before it's revealed that remnants of the empire remain intact and one unexpected bounty job sets Mando on a different path entirely.
The plot isn't too heavy on dramatics for the most part, and the 8 episode arc concentrates on small stories - mini adventures that are resolved relatively quickly. It's a lot of fun. The final two episodes set up a larger narrative, that has me excited for season 2.
The Mandalorian himself (Pedro Pascal) is a great lead, and considering his face is covered the entire time, that's high praise. He has a cold, precise exterior, and shows off frequently his capabilities as a warrior (every episode has a pretty awesome action set piece at one point). Underneath it all, his humanity is shown when The Child (commonly know as Baby Yoda) is thrown into his care, drawing paraells with his own childhood.
The Child arguably steals the show at intervals, being offensively cute throughout, and showing hints at force powers here and there.
Other cast members include Cara Dune (Gina Carano), a completely badass ex Imperial Shock Trooper. Her character is another highlight, and I sincerely hope to see her return for season 2.
Greef Karga (Carl freaking Weathers), bounty salesman and sometimes ally of Mando. The three of them (plus The Child) make for a damn fine crew.
Some further Star power is provided by IG-11 (Taika Waititi) and Kuiil (Nick Nolte) and these two characters further flesh out a great cast.
The villains of the piece aren't in your face, but are present enough to lay the seeds for bigger things to come. Earlier on we have The Client (Werner Herzog oozing text book evil empire vibes), and a bit later, Moff Gideon (Giancarlo Esposito), who is menacing enough to make an impact with his little screentime.
I also enjoyed the fleshing out of the Mandalorian religion.
There is some great directing talent in display as well, with episode from the likes of the aforementioned Taika Waititi, Deborah Chow, Dave Filoni, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Rick Famuyiwa. They've all down a great job of bringing this particular Star Wars narrative to life, and I genuinely enjoyed every episode.
Except for episode 6. And thats mainly due to the throwaway characters we get given. (It reminded me of that infamous shitty episode in season 2 of Stranger Things.)
The devotion to using practical effects pays off tremendously, as The Mandalorian frequently looks superb. The CGI used is actually pretty subtle, and the mix of the two works.
All in all, it's a strong first season that personally tops any of the recent trilogy in terms of Star Wars material. Can't wait to see where it goes!
The Mandalorian is set after the events of Return of the Jedi, where the empire is all but gone, and the titular hero is going about his business, taking bounty jobs for good pay. It's not too long before it's revealed that remnants of the empire remain intact and one unexpected bounty job sets Mando on a different path entirely.
The plot isn't too heavy on dramatics for the most part, and the 8 episode arc concentrates on small stories - mini adventures that are resolved relatively quickly. It's a lot of fun. The final two episodes set up a larger narrative, that has me excited for season 2.
The Mandalorian himself (Pedro Pascal) is a great lead, and considering his face is covered the entire time, that's high praise. He has a cold, precise exterior, and shows off frequently his capabilities as a warrior (every episode has a pretty awesome action set piece at one point). Underneath it all, his humanity is shown when The Child (commonly know as Baby Yoda) is thrown into his care, drawing paraells with his own childhood.
The Child arguably steals the show at intervals, being offensively cute throughout, and showing hints at force powers here and there.
Other cast members include Cara Dune (Gina Carano), a completely badass ex Imperial Shock Trooper. Her character is another highlight, and I sincerely hope to see her return for season 2.
Greef Karga (Carl freaking Weathers), bounty salesman and sometimes ally of Mando. The three of them (plus The Child) make for a damn fine crew.
Some further Star power is provided by IG-11 (Taika Waititi) and Kuiil (Nick Nolte) and these two characters further flesh out a great cast.
The villains of the piece aren't in your face, but are present enough to lay the seeds for bigger things to come. Earlier on we have The Client (Werner Herzog oozing text book evil empire vibes), and a bit later, Moff Gideon (Giancarlo Esposito), who is menacing enough to make an impact with his little screentime.
I also enjoyed the fleshing out of the Mandalorian religion.
There is some great directing talent in display as well, with episode from the likes of the aforementioned Taika Waititi, Deborah Chow, Dave Filoni, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Rick Famuyiwa. They've all down a great job of bringing this particular Star Wars narrative to life, and I genuinely enjoyed every episode.
Except for episode 6. And thats mainly due to the throwaway characters we get given. (It reminded me of that infamous shitty episode in season 2 of Stranger Things.)
The devotion to using practical effects pays off tremendously, as The Mandalorian frequently looks superb. The CGI used is actually pretty subtle, and the mix of the two works.
All in all, it's a strong first season that personally tops any of the recent trilogy in terms of Star Wars material. Can't wait to see where it goes!
Ross (3284 KP) rated The Occultist in Books
Feb 12, 2019 (Updated Feb 14, 2019)
Far from original LitRPG but a whole lot of fun
** Thanks to Portal Books and the author for giving me the chance to read this in advance of its release **
The LitRPG genre (the best-known example being Ready Player One) is something of a narrow one. There are only a few levers to pull: the main character's real life scenario, the game mechanics, the main character's chosen "class" in-game and the conflicts therein.
The Occultist looks to mix this up a bit with the main character choosing a less traditional class, of occultist - that is, he learns the ability to summon a variety of demons and spells/abilities to use with them. This would mark The Occultist out from the crowd, if it weren't for Awaken Online already having done almost the exact same. In AO, Jason chooses a dark class and summons zombies, skeletons etc, and a large part of the early stages of this book really bear a very close resemblance to AO. We have the main character's problems at home, leading him to want to escape into the game, and to find a way to make money from his gaming hobby. The chosen in-game path is almost identical. There is an extremely strong, popular player that he wants to compete with.
From early on, I was thinking this book was a rip-off of AO. But the second half of the book is really where the book marks itself apart from AO. Whereas that book's action was focused on large scale strategy in battles, here we are scurrying around in the background picking players off one by one and there are some truly excellent action sequences, where the abilities and spells learned and the demons at Damien's disposal are used to some really creative effects. Damien looks to get some revenge on his nemesis and also to try and "level up" quickly (again, a key component of LitRPG books), and tries to pick off players as they battle other players, or take on perilous dungeons.
A lot of LitRPG books have had a very immersive gaming element, at times it was more like reading a more traditional fantasy book but where the main character was more clear what he was doing and what skills/abilities he was using. Here you are always aware the character is in a game: he "equips" clothes rather than getting dressed, there is no need for eating or sleeping, what can and can't be done, what you get from killing another character etc is so much more in line with games than in other books. This again marked it out from other books, and gave it a very different feel.
Another major selling point of The Occultist is that it doesn't mess around with time dilation (game time running at a much faster rate than real time). I don't see why so many of the other books in this genre feel the need to build this in, as it is then hard to keep it consistent, and doesn't really feel right or necessary at any time.
Also, Damien's real world troubles take more focus than in other books, as he struggles to find somewhere to live and is on the run.
While the book manages to stick to its own rules (what can and can't be done etc), there is one moment where the main character manages to do something he shouldn't be able to do (his spells have a cool down period before they can be used again and at least once this isn't observed), which was slightly frustrating given how hard the author had tried to plan out the action in line with the people involved and their skills and strengths.
My only real gripe with the book is the title of the game/series - Saga Online, which sounds less like an exciting new MMORPG, and more like the web portal for booking a pensioners' cruise!
In summary, not an original idea (but hard to have such a thing in this genre) but a superbly well told, exciting and fun read. I heartily recommend this to anyone who likes fantasy books, games like the Witcher or just anyone looking for some real fun escapism.
The LitRPG genre (the best-known example being Ready Player One) is something of a narrow one. There are only a few levers to pull: the main character's real life scenario, the game mechanics, the main character's chosen "class" in-game and the conflicts therein.
The Occultist looks to mix this up a bit with the main character choosing a less traditional class, of occultist - that is, he learns the ability to summon a variety of demons and spells/abilities to use with them. This would mark The Occultist out from the crowd, if it weren't for Awaken Online already having done almost the exact same. In AO, Jason chooses a dark class and summons zombies, skeletons etc, and a large part of the early stages of this book really bear a very close resemblance to AO. We have the main character's problems at home, leading him to want to escape into the game, and to find a way to make money from his gaming hobby. The chosen in-game path is almost identical. There is an extremely strong, popular player that he wants to compete with.
From early on, I was thinking this book was a rip-off of AO. But the second half of the book is really where the book marks itself apart from AO. Whereas that book's action was focused on large scale strategy in battles, here we are scurrying around in the background picking players off one by one and there are some truly excellent action sequences, where the abilities and spells learned and the demons at Damien's disposal are used to some really creative effects. Damien looks to get some revenge on his nemesis and also to try and "level up" quickly (again, a key component of LitRPG books), and tries to pick off players as they battle other players, or take on perilous dungeons.
A lot of LitRPG books have had a very immersive gaming element, at times it was more like reading a more traditional fantasy book but where the main character was more clear what he was doing and what skills/abilities he was using. Here you are always aware the character is in a game: he "equips" clothes rather than getting dressed, there is no need for eating or sleeping, what can and can't be done, what you get from killing another character etc is so much more in line with games than in other books. This again marked it out from other books, and gave it a very different feel.
Another major selling point of The Occultist is that it doesn't mess around with time dilation (game time running at a much faster rate than real time). I don't see why so many of the other books in this genre feel the need to build this in, as it is then hard to keep it consistent, and doesn't really feel right or necessary at any time.
Also, Damien's real world troubles take more focus than in other books, as he struggles to find somewhere to live and is on the run.
While the book manages to stick to its own rules (what can and can't be done etc), there is one moment where the main character manages to do something he shouldn't be able to do (his spells have a cool down period before they can be used again and at least once this isn't observed), which was slightly frustrating given how hard the author had tried to plan out the action in line with the people involved and their skills and strengths.
My only real gripe with the book is the title of the game/series - Saga Online, which sounds less like an exciting new MMORPG, and more like the web portal for booking a pensioners' cruise!
In summary, not an original idea (but hard to have such a thing in this genre) but a superbly well told, exciting and fun read. I heartily recommend this to anyone who likes fantasy books, games like the Witcher or just anyone looking for some real fun escapism.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Faster (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
I've always wanted to like Dwayne Johnson as an actor. He was so entertaining when he was The Rock, why can't his movies be just as entertaining? Unfortunately his best received films are the more family oriented ones and watching an ex-wrestler who used to talk about his love for pie and "laying the smackdown on all your candy asses" seems a bit bittersweet. Films like Faster are what Johnson should be sticking to, but it doesn't live up to its potential and results in another flat action film.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Betfair Sports Betting
Sports and Entertainment
App
GET UP TO £/€ 100 IN FREE BETS! T&Cs Apply Our App Includes fantastic features: SOCCER, TENNIS...