Search
Search results
Video 2 Photo - extract still pictures from movies
Photo & Video and Utilities
10.0
Rate It
App
Video 2 Photo allows you to export one or more high quality photos from your videos (and Live...
Cooking Dash™
Games and Entertainment
App
Flo cooks her way to TV fame as a celebrity chef in this fast-paced, new time management game –...
Reiner Knizia's Ra
Games and Entertainment
App
Summer Sale + 64bit update celebration! We are working hard to avoid the Appocalypse - help support...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Halloween Ends (2022) in Movies
Oct 14, 2022 (Updated Oct 14, 2022)
Halloween Ends Closes The New Trilogy With What Fans Expect
The final film I the new “Halloween” trilogy has arrived with “Halloween
Ends” and it looks to bring closure to the character of Laurie Strode
(Jamie Lee Curtis) and the terror of Michael Myers.
The film takes place about four years after the events of “Halloween
Kills” and Michael has not been seen since leaving some to speculate that
he died while others are convinced he is still out there. The fear brought
on by Myers still hangs over the community and suicides and other horrific
aftermaths of his terror keeps the community from healing and moving on.
Laurie has decided to write a book about her experiences and while raising
her Granddaughter Allyson (And Matichak), she is coming to peace with her
life and has even awkwardly flirted with Officer Hawkins (Will Patton).
When a young man named Corey (Rohan Campbell), is involved in a tragic
event, he is marked as a psycho by the community and is often the subject
of abuse from the locals. Laurie sees a person in need and introduces him
to Allyson which starts a relationship that should help both of them heal
and move on.
When Corey is roughed up by locals, he discovers Michael is indeed alive
and well and Michael sees something in Corey due to his past and lets him
live. This sparks a change in Corey as he starts to manifest a darker side
where killing and revenge are his motivations and Michael is his mentor.
At this point it seemed as if the film would be a tale of revenge and
Michael would be grooming a potential replacement but it actually becomes
a bit convoluted as the film seems to be unsure of which storylines to
advance. After a slow start in the carnage department, the body count
rises quickly but without the pacing and tension normally associated with
the best films in the series.
It all leads up to a final confrontation between Michael and Laurie which
should delight fans as Curtis is truly magnificent and there brutal and
deadly dance had the audience cheering during my press screening.
While one device I saw coming a mile away as it was clear someone would be
dealing with it, the film does deliver even if the plot is more muddled
than fans would like. While it does not reach the greatness of the new
reboot, “Halloween Ends” is a fitting finale and is better than several of
the films in the series that followed it, the biggest issue is that the
first film in the trilogy set such a high standard, it was nearly
impossible of the next two films to measure up.
3 stars out of 5
Ends” and it looks to bring closure to the character of Laurie Strode
(Jamie Lee Curtis) and the terror of Michael Myers.
The film takes place about four years after the events of “Halloween
Kills” and Michael has not been seen since leaving some to speculate that
he died while others are convinced he is still out there. The fear brought
on by Myers still hangs over the community and suicides and other horrific
aftermaths of his terror keeps the community from healing and moving on.
Laurie has decided to write a book about her experiences and while raising
her Granddaughter Allyson (And Matichak), she is coming to peace with her
life and has even awkwardly flirted with Officer Hawkins (Will Patton).
When a young man named Corey (Rohan Campbell), is involved in a tragic
event, he is marked as a psycho by the community and is often the subject
of abuse from the locals. Laurie sees a person in need and introduces him
to Allyson which starts a relationship that should help both of them heal
and move on.
When Corey is roughed up by locals, he discovers Michael is indeed alive
and well and Michael sees something in Corey due to his past and lets him
live. This sparks a change in Corey as he starts to manifest a darker side
where killing and revenge are his motivations and Michael is his mentor.
At this point it seemed as if the film would be a tale of revenge and
Michael would be grooming a potential replacement but it actually becomes
a bit convoluted as the film seems to be unsure of which storylines to
advance. After a slow start in the carnage department, the body count
rises quickly but without the pacing and tension normally associated with
the best films in the series.
It all leads up to a final confrontation between Michael and Laurie which
should delight fans as Curtis is truly magnificent and there brutal and
deadly dance had the audience cheering during my press screening.
While one device I saw coming a mile away as it was clear someone would be
dealing with it, the film does deliver even if the plot is more muddled
than fans would like. While it does not reach the greatness of the new
reboot, “Halloween Ends” is a fitting finale and is better than several of
the films in the series that followed it, the biggest issue is that the
first film in the trilogy set such a high standard, it was nearly
impossible of the next two films to measure up.
3 stars out of 5
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Director Gary Ross had his work cut out trying to create a film which brought to life the startling realism of Suzanne Collins’ successful trilogy of novels and here we have the first, The Hunger Games.
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated In Time (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
t is said that time is money and in the new film “In Time” this statement takes on an entirely new meaning. In the future we learn that humans have been genetically created to stop aging at the age of 25. Once they reach this selected age, a clock starts to count down from one year. People can obtain more time via work, stealing it from others, or being gifted more time but once their clock hits zero, they expire or “Time Out” as it is called.
As the film opens, we are introduced to Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), a man who is three years past twenty five who lives at home with his mother (Olivia Wilde). Will starts each day with barely enough time on his clock for another day, so he dutifully heads off to work each day to earn more time. As does his mother and everyone he knows since workers are paid at the end of their shifts by having more time added to their accounts. Many need to work daily in order to see the next day. To stop working is to die and since everything from food to rent and clothing is paid for in time from an individual’s account, they often have to make the choice between a transaction or more hours of life.
One evening after work, Will encounters a man named Henry (Matt Bomer), with over 100 years remaining on his clock and cautions the man that in this area he is likely to attract thieves. Will’s warnings go unheeded and soon a group of thugs arrive forcing Will to whisk the man away to safety. During their night in hiding, the man tells Will that after living for over a century, he is tired of the way the system is and how the rich can live forever while the working poor suffer just to live another day.
Will awakens the next morning to find the man gone and that his clock has now been credited the 100 years. Will locates the man just in time to watch him time out with a smile as he watches the sun rise. Flush with new wealth, Will plans to move his mother out of the slums and into a better life but when tragedy strikes, Will decides to move to where the wealth is as to take them for all he can.
Will soon finds himself in a high stakes card game at a casino and in a desperate move finds himself wealthier than he ever imagined. His actions impress very wealthy banking magnet Philippie Weiss (Vincent Kartheiser), who introduces him to his daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried). Will and Sylvia hit it off as she is intrigued by someone who came into money rather than being born with it and imagines what life would be like with some excitement.
Will and Sylvia soon have their worlds turned upside down when Will is suspected in the death of Henry and find themselves on the run from a Timekeeper named Raymond (Cillian Murphy), who wants to bring Will to justice. In a rapid series of events, Will and Sylvia must contend with Raymond, criminals, and a series of unsavory characters to regain their lost time before it is to late so they can implement their master plan to truly make a difference.
The film has some great social commentary and a great cast but is hindered by trying to be too many things. It works well as a science fiction film with elements of action and romance. Sadly the film goes off course by having Will and Sylvia act as a modern day Robin Hood duo taking on the powers-that-be to save the downtrodden masses. While it is a noble effort it derailed the momentum of the story as much of the tension and mystery of the story was lost. If one is wanted by thugs and the authorities, I would think that knocking over one high profile time bank after another would not be the way to keep a low profile.
That being said, despite the flaws, the film works and I found myself thinking about the characters and the setting they lived in days after the I screened the film. I had been concerned that the film would be nothing more than a knockoff of “Logan’s Run” but thankfully the film had enough new content to keep it fresh and interesting. In many ways, “In Time” is science fiction at its best as it allows for timely social commentary and provides a disturbing look at many age old debates on society’s endless quests for wealth, power, and youth.
As the film opens, we are introduced to Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), a man who is three years past twenty five who lives at home with his mother (Olivia Wilde). Will starts each day with barely enough time on his clock for another day, so he dutifully heads off to work each day to earn more time. As does his mother and everyone he knows since workers are paid at the end of their shifts by having more time added to their accounts. Many need to work daily in order to see the next day. To stop working is to die and since everything from food to rent and clothing is paid for in time from an individual’s account, they often have to make the choice between a transaction or more hours of life.
One evening after work, Will encounters a man named Henry (Matt Bomer), with over 100 years remaining on his clock and cautions the man that in this area he is likely to attract thieves. Will’s warnings go unheeded and soon a group of thugs arrive forcing Will to whisk the man away to safety. During their night in hiding, the man tells Will that after living for over a century, he is tired of the way the system is and how the rich can live forever while the working poor suffer just to live another day.
Will awakens the next morning to find the man gone and that his clock has now been credited the 100 years. Will locates the man just in time to watch him time out with a smile as he watches the sun rise. Flush with new wealth, Will plans to move his mother out of the slums and into a better life but when tragedy strikes, Will decides to move to where the wealth is as to take them for all he can.
Will soon finds himself in a high stakes card game at a casino and in a desperate move finds himself wealthier than he ever imagined. His actions impress very wealthy banking magnet Philippie Weiss (Vincent Kartheiser), who introduces him to his daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried). Will and Sylvia hit it off as she is intrigued by someone who came into money rather than being born with it and imagines what life would be like with some excitement.
Will and Sylvia soon have their worlds turned upside down when Will is suspected in the death of Henry and find themselves on the run from a Timekeeper named Raymond (Cillian Murphy), who wants to bring Will to justice. In a rapid series of events, Will and Sylvia must contend with Raymond, criminals, and a series of unsavory characters to regain their lost time before it is to late so they can implement their master plan to truly make a difference.
The film has some great social commentary and a great cast but is hindered by trying to be too many things. It works well as a science fiction film with elements of action and romance. Sadly the film goes off course by having Will and Sylvia act as a modern day Robin Hood duo taking on the powers-that-be to save the downtrodden masses. While it is a noble effort it derailed the momentum of the story as much of the tension and mystery of the story was lost. If one is wanted by thugs and the authorities, I would think that knocking over one high profile time bank after another would not be the way to keep a low profile.
That being said, despite the flaws, the film works and I found myself thinking about the characters and the setting they lived in days after the I screened the film. I had been concerned that the film would be nothing more than a knockoff of “Logan’s Run” but thankfully the film had enough new content to keep it fresh and interesting. In many ways, “In Time” is science fiction at its best as it allows for timely social commentary and provides a disturbing look at many age old debates on society’s endless quests for wealth, power, and youth.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
It seems recently that the Disney vault has exploded with the release of several of their classic animated films being remade. Unfortunately, the classics that have inspired these remakes have been redone with mixed results. The original The Lion King was released back in 1994 and it’s hard to believe that I was a junior in college when I saw it. Since that time, we’ve seen various iterations of the classic story, a few direct to VCR sequels and the awe-inspiring Broadway stage production (which if you are a serious fan of the movie I encourage you to see). It seems odd to discuss the plot of a movie that I’m certain everyone reading this has seen at least once (or a dozen times over). To the uninformed however, The Lion King is about a young cub named Simba (JD McCrary as the young voice and Donald Glover as the adult) who suffers the tragic loss of his father Mufasa (James Earl Jones) at the paws of his evil uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Scar convinces Simba that he is responsible for his father’s death and that he must leave the pride and never return. With the help of his faithful friends Timon (Billy Eichner), the lovable warthog Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), the ever wise Zazu (John Oliver) and his budding queen Nala (Beyoncé’) he learns that true courage comes from within and realizes he must face Scar if he is ever to bring peace back to the Pride Lands.
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
We DO remember them.
“Trapped in a Charlie Chaplin World”. So says director Peter Jackson in a post-screening discussion with Mark Kermode, describing early black and white documentary footage. Whereas modern film runs at 24 fps, most of the old footage is hand cranked, with speeds as low as 12 fps which leads to its jerky nature. Jackson in this project with the Imperial War Museum took their WW1 footage and put it through a ‘pipeline process. This cleaned-up and restored the original footage; used clever computer interpolation to add in the missing 6 to 12 frames per second; and then colourised it.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Fantasy Ranch in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019 (Updated Jun 12, 2019)
Little known fact: my family used to be involved with local harness racing and horse training. Not much actually rubbed off on me, personally, but I do remember going to the stables to visit with the horses, and I was even allowed to ride the stable goat since I wasn’t yet big enough to get on the horses. Ahh, memories. So when I heard that a game existed with a horse ranching theme, I just HAD to get it to the table. Is it a good game though? Let’s find out! (spoilers: IT’S EXCELLENT!)
DISCLAIMER: The game comes with three modes of difficulty AND an included children’s game that also can be played on three modes of difficulty. For this review we are concentrating only on adult mode two. We felt mode one was too introductory, but we did not want to go all in right away on mode three. -T
As with most board games, you are trying to amass trophies (VP) and the winner at the end of five rounds is the rancher with the most trophies. On your turn you can take one Limited (standard) Action and as many Free Actions as you would like. Limited Actions include: buy a horse, buy a location on your ranch board, or farm your ranch for goods. Free Actions include: sell a horse, move horses to/from your home area to/from a different area on your ranch board, or trade goods at a 2:1 ratio. Once every player has taken their turn, you enter a show using the horses you have collected.
Buying a horse requires different amounts of food (in carrots) that you gain from different actions (farming your ranch, selling a horse). Luckily, spending food is a one-time action and you don’t have to feed your horses every turn. A great improvement over other “feed your villagers” games, in my opinion – yeah, I said it. Buying a location on your ranch board/playmat requires “tack,” which is symbolized by boot tokens (as seen below). You can always get more food and tack by farming your ranch, and you receive six goods of any combination, but that’s a Limited Action and prevents you from doing the other actions.
Selling a horse is easy, yet the separation anxiety is real, as you simply discard the horse for the amount of food it costs to purchase. Moving horses is easy too – your Home area of your ranch/playmat can only hold so many horses, so you will need to move horses of certain types to unlocked (purchased) matching areas on your ranch. This is important, as you cannot keep buying red horses or you will certainly run out of room for them, even if you unlock the red area on your ranch board. Plus unlocking sections of your ranch provides you with trophies at game end. The last free action is trading goods, which you do at a 2:1 ratio. So trade in two food for a tack or vice versa.
At shows you use horses for their specific specialty skills plus a die roll. Each horse has specialty in one area, and some skill in other areas. The number associated with a skill icon indicates the starting skill “strength” that you will add to your die roll. You roll all three dice of your color, take the highest result from the roll, and add the skill strength of the horse skill. That’s your score for the show. The highest number is awarded 1st place and the rewards printed, and so on and so forth for the other placing horses. This could result in more food or tack, or even your choice of horses for free from the sales barn.
On the very last turn of the game you will compete in three shows (instead of the normal two shows at the end of each turn) and can only use World Class horses, or buy your way into the show with food. The show process is the same, but it is the final push to earn as many trophies as possible before game end. And that’s it!
Components: This game is FULL of components. It’s a pretty stocked and heavy box, but still only the size of a Ticket to Ride box. The playmats, game boards, and cardboard chits are all of really great quality. The cards are great quality as well with photos of real existing horses (as well as the photos of real existing ranches on the giant ranch cards that are essentially beautiful player reference cards and resource holders). The best components of the game are the super cute little horeeples (oh no, that can’t possibly be correct). Horse-meeples. They come in different colors to match the areas on your ranch that you need to unlock and move them into so you don’t overcrowd your Home area. Even though my copy came with a green horse who lost his front legs, we know that he competes hard and lives his best life. The art is really really great and, though busy on the board at times, the game looks really good on the table. No qualms with the components on this one at all.
Here’s what I really like about this one. It’s a euro through and through, but it’s a euro that is actually exciting, with a unique theme, and one that I genuinely cannot wait to play again. I want to try mode three as soon as I can, and I really want to introduce my son to the game as soon as he is able to handle it. I am finding it really really hard to think of a game that comes ready to play three ways for adults, has components included to play the game three ways with children, and is actually super fun. I can’t think of any. This game is truly in a class by itself.
I love that no matter how tactical you play or how strategic you want to make it, sometimes the dice love/hate you and it could make all the difference. As you can see in the scores, we all love it (with the exception of my cousin Tony who rated it a three because of the dice – WHICH is odd because it is his father that was the harness racing jockey of the family). This review would have been live a week ago, but immediately after playing last weekend Josh said he would like to bring it home to play with his family. His wife is from Kentucky, and they kinda like horses and horse racing there. Well, his wife and son also rated this game out of 6. His wife gave Fantasy Ranch a 15 and his son rated it a 16. As that completely throws off my rating scale I did not add them, but as you can see we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a very boot-kickin’ 19 / 24. If only we hadn’t invited Tony over to destroy the scores… We highly recommend you check this winner out. Seriously, it’s great.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/06/04/fantasy-ranch-review/
DISCLAIMER: The game comes with three modes of difficulty AND an included children’s game that also can be played on three modes of difficulty. For this review we are concentrating only on adult mode two. We felt mode one was too introductory, but we did not want to go all in right away on mode three. -T
As with most board games, you are trying to amass trophies (VP) and the winner at the end of five rounds is the rancher with the most trophies. On your turn you can take one Limited (standard) Action and as many Free Actions as you would like. Limited Actions include: buy a horse, buy a location on your ranch board, or farm your ranch for goods. Free Actions include: sell a horse, move horses to/from your home area to/from a different area on your ranch board, or trade goods at a 2:1 ratio. Once every player has taken their turn, you enter a show using the horses you have collected.
Buying a horse requires different amounts of food (in carrots) that you gain from different actions (farming your ranch, selling a horse). Luckily, spending food is a one-time action and you don’t have to feed your horses every turn. A great improvement over other “feed your villagers” games, in my opinion – yeah, I said it. Buying a location on your ranch board/playmat requires “tack,” which is symbolized by boot tokens (as seen below). You can always get more food and tack by farming your ranch, and you receive six goods of any combination, but that’s a Limited Action and prevents you from doing the other actions.
Selling a horse is easy, yet the separation anxiety is real, as you simply discard the horse for the amount of food it costs to purchase. Moving horses is easy too – your Home area of your ranch/playmat can only hold so many horses, so you will need to move horses of certain types to unlocked (purchased) matching areas on your ranch. This is important, as you cannot keep buying red horses or you will certainly run out of room for them, even if you unlock the red area on your ranch board. Plus unlocking sections of your ranch provides you with trophies at game end. The last free action is trading goods, which you do at a 2:1 ratio. So trade in two food for a tack or vice versa.
At shows you use horses for their specific specialty skills plus a die roll. Each horse has specialty in one area, and some skill in other areas. The number associated with a skill icon indicates the starting skill “strength” that you will add to your die roll. You roll all three dice of your color, take the highest result from the roll, and add the skill strength of the horse skill. That’s your score for the show. The highest number is awarded 1st place and the rewards printed, and so on and so forth for the other placing horses. This could result in more food or tack, or even your choice of horses for free from the sales barn.
On the very last turn of the game you will compete in three shows (instead of the normal two shows at the end of each turn) and can only use World Class horses, or buy your way into the show with food. The show process is the same, but it is the final push to earn as many trophies as possible before game end. And that’s it!
Components: This game is FULL of components. It’s a pretty stocked and heavy box, but still only the size of a Ticket to Ride box. The playmats, game boards, and cardboard chits are all of really great quality. The cards are great quality as well with photos of real existing horses (as well as the photos of real existing ranches on the giant ranch cards that are essentially beautiful player reference cards and resource holders). The best components of the game are the super cute little horeeples (oh no, that can’t possibly be correct). Horse-meeples. They come in different colors to match the areas on your ranch that you need to unlock and move them into so you don’t overcrowd your Home area. Even though my copy came with a green horse who lost his front legs, we know that he competes hard and lives his best life. The art is really really great and, though busy on the board at times, the game looks really good on the table. No qualms with the components on this one at all.
Here’s what I really like about this one. It’s a euro through and through, but it’s a euro that is actually exciting, with a unique theme, and one that I genuinely cannot wait to play again. I want to try mode three as soon as I can, and I really want to introduce my son to the game as soon as he is able to handle it. I am finding it really really hard to think of a game that comes ready to play three ways for adults, has components included to play the game three ways with children, and is actually super fun. I can’t think of any. This game is truly in a class by itself.
I love that no matter how tactical you play or how strategic you want to make it, sometimes the dice love/hate you and it could make all the difference. As you can see in the scores, we all love it (with the exception of my cousin Tony who rated it a three because of the dice – WHICH is odd because it is his father that was the harness racing jockey of the family). This review would have been live a week ago, but immediately after playing last weekend Josh said he would like to bring it home to play with his family. His wife is from Kentucky, and they kinda like horses and horse racing there. Well, his wife and son also rated this game out of 6. His wife gave Fantasy Ranch a 15 and his son rated it a 16. As that completely throws off my rating scale I did not add them, but as you can see we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a very boot-kickin’ 19 / 24. If only we hadn’t invited Tony over to destroy the scores… We highly recommend you check this winner out. Seriously, it’s great.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/06/04/fantasy-ranch-review/