Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Fun Filled Family Event
Shazam! is a 2019 superhero movie based on the DC Comics character. Produced by New Line Cinema and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, it is the first live-action film version of the character since 1941. The film is also directed by David F. Sandberg from a screenplay by Henry Gayden and story by Henry Hayden and Darren Lemke. Starring Zachary Levi, Asher Angel, Mark Strong, Jack Dylan Grazer, and Djimon Hounsou.
In 1974 Upstate New York, the ancient wizard Shazam magically transports Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto) to the Rock of Eternity, a hidden magical temple. Shazam, the last of the Council of Seven Wizards, explains that he has been searching for centuries for a champion who is "pure of heart". Released upon the ancient world, and now trapped in statues within the Rock, the Seven Deadly Sins tempt Thaddeus with promises of power. Banished back to Earth as unworthy of being a champion for succumbing to the sins, Thaddeus causes an accident while traveling with his family which leaves his father severely injured. Searching for his birth mother in present day Philadelphia, foster kid Billy Batson (Angel Asher) runs a foul of the law and is placed in a group home with 5 other foster kids run by Victor (Cooper Andrews) and Rosa Vasquez (Marta Milans). Freddy Freeman (Jack Dylan Frazer) is one of the five foster kids, an amateur superhero expert, and his new roommate. Now an adult Thaddeus (Mark Strong) discovers how to return to the Rock and acquire the power he was denied as a child.
This movie was a ton of fun. I don't think I've laughed out loud in a comic book movie this much since Ant-Man. This movie was really good. It had its silliness in certain parts but still did well in building tension and having its serious parts. Also it was well done on how the story played on your emotions for a lot of the different characters. I love the way the foster family and siblings came into play throughout the film. The special effects were really good, especially the monsters and even though you know Zachary Levi is in a muscle suit (which i initially disliked) it didn't even matter. The plot was good although some of it seemed recycled which bothered me slightly. The dialogue was good, some of it silly, which seemed appropriate for the character being younger than he looks when he is Shazam. But I didn't have much to complain about. I never saw one of the major twists coming at the end, so that really surprised me. If you're looking for a fun movie to watch, with family or friends or a superhero movie that will also make you laugh, Shazam is the one to choose. I give this movie a 8/10.
In 1974 Upstate New York, the ancient wizard Shazam magically transports Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto) to the Rock of Eternity, a hidden magical temple. Shazam, the last of the Council of Seven Wizards, explains that he has been searching for centuries for a champion who is "pure of heart". Released upon the ancient world, and now trapped in statues within the Rock, the Seven Deadly Sins tempt Thaddeus with promises of power. Banished back to Earth as unworthy of being a champion for succumbing to the sins, Thaddeus causes an accident while traveling with his family which leaves his father severely injured. Searching for his birth mother in present day Philadelphia, foster kid Billy Batson (Angel Asher) runs a foul of the law and is placed in a group home with 5 other foster kids run by Victor (Cooper Andrews) and Rosa Vasquez (Marta Milans). Freddy Freeman (Jack Dylan Frazer) is one of the five foster kids, an amateur superhero expert, and his new roommate. Now an adult Thaddeus (Mark Strong) discovers how to return to the Rock and acquire the power he was denied as a child.
This movie was a ton of fun. I don't think I've laughed out loud in a comic book movie this much since Ant-Man. This movie was really good. It had its silliness in certain parts but still did well in building tension and having its serious parts. Also it was well done on how the story played on your emotions for a lot of the different characters. I love the way the foster family and siblings came into play throughout the film. The special effects were really good, especially the monsters and even though you know Zachary Levi is in a muscle suit (which i initially disliked) it didn't even matter. The plot was good although some of it seemed recycled which bothered me slightly. The dialogue was good, some of it silly, which seemed appropriate for the character being younger than he looks when he is Shazam. But I didn't have much to complain about. I never saw one of the major twists coming at the end, so that really surprised me. If you're looking for a fun movie to watch, with family or friends or a superhero movie that will also make you laugh, Shazam is the one to choose. I give this movie a 8/10.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated It Follows (2015) in Movies
Jan 2, 2018
Terrifying
Perhaps It Follows could have done with a little more resolution. Or maybe it ended exactly where it was supposed to. Either way, the movie was flat-out phenomenal from start to finish.
After sleeping with a guy she has been dating for awhile, Jay (Maika Monroe) wakes up to find herself tied to a chair in an abandoned building. Her boyfriend explains to her that he has passed on to her a mark that will cause something horrific to come after her. She has to kill it before it kills her and comes after the others that have been marked.
It Follows opens with a girl bursting out of a home in her underclothes. She is frazzled and looks to be terrified by something. She runs home, grabs her car keys, and races for the beach. It's not two minutes in before we see what comes of this girl and the horrifying entity we will be dealing with in the film. Three minutes in and you're totally hooked.
Although director David Robert Mitchell confirmed that there is no set time period in which the movie takes place, both the setting and soundtrack gave me an 80's vibe a la "Stranger Things". I can't explain it, but the little touches--cord phone, small tube tv's, etc.--gave the film even more of an unsettling feel.
I can't tell you the number of times I had to leave my chair to hide out in the kitchen, watching the film from around a corner. What terrified me the most was not having any idea what was coming next. The entity antagonist literally could be anyone and could show up at anytime. Edge of my seat doesn't even begin to define it.
The movie benefits from both an interesting premise and a phenomenal performance from Monroe. I hope to see her again in more films, one of which I just added to my Movies 365 list: The Guest (2014)! I give It Follows a very well-deserved 97. See it.
After sleeping with a guy she has been dating for awhile, Jay (Maika Monroe) wakes up to find herself tied to a chair in an abandoned building. Her boyfriend explains to her that he has passed on to her a mark that will cause something horrific to come after her. She has to kill it before it kills her and comes after the others that have been marked.
It Follows opens with a girl bursting out of a home in her underclothes. She is frazzled and looks to be terrified by something. She runs home, grabs her car keys, and races for the beach. It's not two minutes in before we see what comes of this girl and the horrifying entity we will be dealing with in the film. Three minutes in and you're totally hooked.
Although director David Robert Mitchell confirmed that there is no set time period in which the movie takes place, both the setting and soundtrack gave me an 80's vibe a la "Stranger Things". I can't explain it, but the little touches--cord phone, small tube tv's, etc.--gave the film even more of an unsettling feel.
I can't tell you the number of times I had to leave my chair to hide out in the kitchen, watching the film from around a corner. What terrified me the most was not having any idea what was coming next. The entity antagonist literally could be anyone and could show up at anytime. Edge of my seat doesn't even begin to define it.
The movie benefits from both an interesting premise and a phenomenal performance from Monroe. I hope to see her again in more films, one of which I just added to my Movies 365 list: The Guest (2014)! I give It Follows a very well-deserved 97. See it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Other Guys (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
The Other Guys is a stupid charmer of a movie that surprisingly works despite it’s penchant for odd humor and occasional missed targets. The story was slightly meandering and a few times boring, but made its way back to form before the third act. The laughs came in plentiful heaps, and although there were a few misses, overall The Other Guys was one of the funnier of this summer’s comedic ventures.
The Other Guys is a play on words against the stereotypical Good Guys: P.K. Highsmith and Christopher Danson are the big boy cops with big boy swagger, played by Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson with bravado and just enough over-the-top asshole to make them lovable. Allen Gamble, a new type of character for a Will Ferrell comedy that finally isn’t a Ron Burgundy rerun, could perhaps be called eccentric because of the way he acts so conventional. Terry Hoitz, played by Mark Wahlberg, shines as a perfect complement to Ferrell. He plays every line perfectly straight, and this unexpectedly makes him even more hilarious. After seeing him in his last performance in Date Night, where he almost stole the show, I’ve no doubt this man can excel in comedic roles. Michael Keaton, as their boss, put forward a humorously feeble character as Captain Gene. The villain, billionaire David Ershon, was played by the always wonderful Steve Coogan to great effect. As a side note, whoever chose the narrator for the film had serious comedic inspiration of the genius type.
One might wonder how and when the Other Guys will get their shot at fame, and without spoiling it, I’ll say it’s one of the funniest moments in the movie. Scratch that, the funniest moment in the movie is… well, you’ll just have to see it, but when you do, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about, and it’s gold.
The Other Guys is a play on words against the stereotypical Good Guys: P.K. Highsmith and Christopher Danson are the big boy cops with big boy swagger, played by Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson with bravado and just enough over-the-top asshole to make them lovable. Allen Gamble, a new type of character for a Will Ferrell comedy that finally isn’t a Ron Burgundy rerun, could perhaps be called eccentric because of the way he acts so conventional. Terry Hoitz, played by Mark Wahlberg, shines as a perfect complement to Ferrell. He plays every line perfectly straight, and this unexpectedly makes him even more hilarious. After seeing him in his last performance in Date Night, where he almost stole the show, I’ve no doubt this man can excel in comedic roles. Michael Keaton, as their boss, put forward a humorously feeble character as Captain Gene. The villain, billionaire David Ershon, was played by the always wonderful Steve Coogan to great effect. As a side note, whoever chose the narrator for the film had serious comedic inspiration of the genius type.
One might wonder how and when the Other Guys will get their shot at fame, and without spoiling it, I’ll say it’s one of the funniest moments in the movie. Scratch that, the funniest moment in the movie is… well, you’ll just have to see it, but when you do, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about, and it’s gold.
Ross (3282 KP) rated Good Omens in TV
Jul 4, 2019
Broadly fine
I am a long-time fan of Terry Pratchett, and a more recent fan of Neil Gaiman, and yet it was only the release of the TV series that prompted me to finally read their joint effort. I thought the book was pretty good, lots of nice silly little jokes spread about, and a good plot keeping up momentum throughout.
I felt the TV series let the book down a little bit. While the overall story and the dialogue, in the main, is true to the book, I felt a lot of it fell flat. A lot of the humour (which comes in the form of charming asides, generally in the narrative of the book) missed the mark and just did not land properly. I did like the expanded section on Azirafale and Crowley's efforts through time, though I think they laboured it too long on the angel's unwillingness and didn't quite show how much they had worked together.
Tennant played Bill Nighy playing a demon, Sheen played David Mitchell playing an angel and they were broadly fine but didn't really sit perfectly for my liking. The rest of the cast were pretty strong (with the exception of Jack Whitehall who I utterly detest and don't think he can act for toffee).
The special effects were on the poor side, but that is only compared to the major big-budget TV shows like GoT and The Walking Dead. The physical effects were excellent.
In all, I am glad they restricted the series to a small number of episodes and did not try and drag it out too long. The ending was not given the build-up it deserved, there really wasn't enough peril before the two single acts that stopped the end of the war (Pulsifer and Adam).
I was very happy to see the relationship between Azirafale and Crowley develop beyond friendship
I felt the TV series let the book down a little bit. While the overall story and the dialogue, in the main, is true to the book, I felt a lot of it fell flat. A lot of the humour (which comes in the form of charming asides, generally in the narrative of the book) missed the mark and just did not land properly. I did like the expanded section on Azirafale and Crowley's efforts through time, though I think they laboured it too long on the angel's unwillingness and didn't quite show how much they had worked together.
Tennant played Bill Nighy playing a demon, Sheen played David Mitchell playing an angel and they were broadly fine but didn't really sit perfectly for my liking. The rest of the cast were pretty strong (with the exception of Jack Whitehall who I utterly detest and don't think he can act for toffee).
The special effects were on the poor side, but that is only compared to the major big-budget TV shows like GoT and The Walking Dead. The physical effects were excellent.
In all, I am glad they restricted the series to a small number of episodes and did not try and drag it out too long. The ending was not given the build-up it deserved, there really wasn't enough peril before the two single acts that stopped the end of the war (Pulsifer and Adam).
I was very happy to see the relationship between Azirafale and Crowley develop beyond friendship
Joe Elliott recommended Every Picture Tells a Story by Rod Stewart in Music (curated)
Kenneth Lonergan recommended Dark Waters (2019) in Movies (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fight Club (1999) in Movies
May 7, 2020
Subversively Funny
The first rule of this review is that I cannot talk about this movie.
The second rule of this review is that I CANNOT TALK ABOUT THIS MOVIE!
So...I'm going to talk about this movie.
David Fincher's 1999 mind-tripping epic about 2 friends who join forces to create chaos is not the movie that you think it is. Not even if you've seen it.
Directed by one of the my favorite Directors of all time, FIGHT CLUB tells the story of Edward Norton's character (who's name is never mentioned in the film) who is suffering from insomnia and an all around lack of enthusiasm for life - that is until he runs into 2 people that will profoundly change his life - Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter) and, especially, Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt).
This film was poorly marketed by the studio at the time of it's release - focusing on the "FIGHT CLUB" aspect of this film - and if that is turning you away from this film, then you are missing out, for the "Fight Club" aspect is only one sliver of what this film is about. This film is an incredibly funny parody of society and "fitting in" with over-the-top scenarios and characters masquerading as people and events in "the real world".
David Fincher is perfectly suited for this work. He handled the pacing, style and subject matter with aplomb balancing seriousness and absurdity perfectly to create a subtle parody. It is a masterwork in that you don't notice his Direction - always a mark of a good Director.
Edward Norton, of course, is wonderfully cynical as the Narrator. When this film came out, I went to see it because of him - he was (is?) an actor that (more often than not) picks quality material and delivers a quality performance. Brad Pitt, of course, has the "showier" role and he nails it. This film marked the "coming out" of Pitt as an actor for me - and he hasn't stopped (right up until his deserved Oscar this year for ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD). But, it is the performance of Helena Bonham Carter that caught my eye on this re-watch. Fight Club is one of those films that becomes a different film upon a 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and 5th...) watch - mostly because of the change in perspective of the Marla character. I've now seen this film multiple times and in this viewing it was Marla's journey that captured my attention. It is a terrific performance that is an optical illusion.
This film is not for everyone - so be warned - but if you give it a shot, I think you'll find a richly rewarding - and subversively funny - movie going experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The second rule of this review is that I CANNOT TALK ABOUT THIS MOVIE!
So...I'm going to talk about this movie.
David Fincher's 1999 mind-tripping epic about 2 friends who join forces to create chaos is not the movie that you think it is. Not even if you've seen it.
Directed by one of the my favorite Directors of all time, FIGHT CLUB tells the story of Edward Norton's character (who's name is never mentioned in the film) who is suffering from insomnia and an all around lack of enthusiasm for life - that is until he runs into 2 people that will profoundly change his life - Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter) and, especially, Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt).
This film was poorly marketed by the studio at the time of it's release - focusing on the "FIGHT CLUB" aspect of this film - and if that is turning you away from this film, then you are missing out, for the "Fight Club" aspect is only one sliver of what this film is about. This film is an incredibly funny parody of society and "fitting in" with over-the-top scenarios and characters masquerading as people and events in "the real world".
David Fincher is perfectly suited for this work. He handled the pacing, style and subject matter with aplomb balancing seriousness and absurdity perfectly to create a subtle parody. It is a masterwork in that you don't notice his Direction - always a mark of a good Director.
Edward Norton, of course, is wonderfully cynical as the Narrator. When this film came out, I went to see it because of him - he was (is?) an actor that (more often than not) picks quality material and delivers a quality performance. Brad Pitt, of course, has the "showier" role and he nails it. This film marked the "coming out" of Pitt as an actor for me - and he hasn't stopped (right up until his deserved Oscar this year for ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD). But, it is the performance of Helena Bonham Carter that caught my eye on this re-watch. Fight Club is one of those films that becomes a different film upon a 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and 5th...) watch - mostly because of the change in perspective of the Marla character. I've now seen this film multiple times and in this viewing it was Marla's journey that captured my attention. It is a terrific performance that is an optical illusion.
This film is not for everyone - so be warned - but if you give it a shot, I think you'll find a richly rewarding - and subversively funny - movie going experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The BFG (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Spielberg, where are you?
Roald Dahl’s inspiring novels have had a chequered history when it comes to turning them into films. Danny DeVito’s Matilda is widely regarded as one of the best adaptations, with Tim Burton’s Charlie & the Chocolate Factory rendered a monstrosity by fans of the author and movie critics alike.
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Social Network (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
It’s hard to find anyone who doesn’t know about Facebook. On any given day, at least 250 million active users log on to Facebook and spend over 700 billion minutes per month updating their status, posting pictures or playing casual games. So dominant is this social network, the name itself is both a brand and a verb. Who would have thought that sharing inanities about what we’re currently thinking, eating, reading, watching with our friends would garner such interest? In the new movie The Social Network, director David Fincher sets out to show how, from the very humblest beginnings, Facebook became the juggernaut that it is today.
In 2003, after a debate and breakup with his girlfriend, fueled by his frustration at his exclusion from the social elite, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius, Mark Zuckerberg, sits at his computer one night and changes the face of the internet. In just a few hours Zuckerberg, deftly played by Jesse Eisenberg, circumvents the firewalls and security of Harvard and creates a website that allows visitors to rate the ladies of the campus. Within a few hours, the thousands of hits crash the vaunted computer network of the university.
While Harvard staff was not impressed with his efforts, it certainly caught the attention of his fellow students, most notably the Winklevoss brothers, who seek out Zuckerberg with the intention of creating an exclusive website for Harvard students. While seemingly mulling over the proposal of the new site, Zuckerberg rapidly, and obsessively, develops his own. The early version of what would eventually become Facebook soon becomes a campus sensation, much to the dismay of the Winklevoss brothers.
Andrew Garfield plays Zuckerberg’s friend Eduardo Severin who funds Zuckerberg’s efforts. Facebook rapidly became the height of social hipness as its exclusivity widened to more colleges and universities. College students across the country created profiles and quickly spread news of the site simply by word of mouth. Or rather word of email. The success of Facebook soon gains the attention of Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake. Parker had risen to prominence as the creator of the popular file sharing site Napster and was eager to become involved with the growing success of Facebook. While Mark is fascinated and inspired by Sean’s slick style, Eduardo isn’t impressed and is highly suspicious of Sean’s motives as well as his shady reputation. As the trailers and posters have touted, you can’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies. Jealousy feeds insecurities that feed accusations that eventually lead to lawsuits.
Eisenberg is fantastic as the egotistical, neurotic, and highly intelligent Mark Zuckerberg, but the true breakout performance of the film has to be that of Andrew Garfield, who has been cast to play Spiderman in the next trilogy of the very popular film series. The British actor who was born and raised in Los Angeles has an understated charisma and appears very capable of becoming a leading man. He infuses Eduardo with class and humanism as he tries to be the friend Zuckerberg doesn’t think he needs.
The film is told largely through flashbacks during a deposition hearing between the parties involved in the lawsuits. Director Fincher skillfully allows his characters to drive the film, letting the story unfold in telling scenes, giving the characters ample room to shine without becoming preachy or resorting to grandstanding.
The characters, despite their flaws, do come across as very believable and sympathetic, even though it’s difficult to imagine going from students to inventors of a pop culture phenomenon, to billionaires in just a few short years. Very few corporations that become dominant in their industry do so without critics, challengers, and those that claim they were responsible for whatever success a company gained.
While The Social Network does not overtly place blame, the light it shines on Zuckerberg isn’t altogether flattering. Surprisingly, the film does not go to the extreme with tech talk. It instead focuses on the relationship between the characters and how they handled the drastic and sudden changes in their lives brought on by a simple program called Face Mash, which became the basis for Facebook.
Strong supporting work in the film combined with the great performances of the lead characters makes The Social Network”a very solid and entertaining film that, for my money, is one of the better films of the year.
While it would be easy to jump to judgment and brand many in the film as egotistical rich people who should be grateful for what they have, I remembered that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I wondered just how well any of us in the audience would react if we were ever faced with a similar situation.
In 2003, after a debate and breakup with his girlfriend, fueled by his frustration at his exclusion from the social elite, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius, Mark Zuckerberg, sits at his computer one night and changes the face of the internet. In just a few hours Zuckerberg, deftly played by Jesse Eisenberg, circumvents the firewalls and security of Harvard and creates a website that allows visitors to rate the ladies of the campus. Within a few hours, the thousands of hits crash the vaunted computer network of the university.
While Harvard staff was not impressed with his efforts, it certainly caught the attention of his fellow students, most notably the Winklevoss brothers, who seek out Zuckerberg with the intention of creating an exclusive website for Harvard students. While seemingly mulling over the proposal of the new site, Zuckerberg rapidly, and obsessively, develops his own. The early version of what would eventually become Facebook soon becomes a campus sensation, much to the dismay of the Winklevoss brothers.
Andrew Garfield plays Zuckerberg’s friend Eduardo Severin who funds Zuckerberg’s efforts. Facebook rapidly became the height of social hipness as its exclusivity widened to more colleges and universities. College students across the country created profiles and quickly spread news of the site simply by word of mouth. Or rather word of email. The success of Facebook soon gains the attention of Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake. Parker had risen to prominence as the creator of the popular file sharing site Napster and was eager to become involved with the growing success of Facebook. While Mark is fascinated and inspired by Sean’s slick style, Eduardo isn’t impressed and is highly suspicious of Sean’s motives as well as his shady reputation. As the trailers and posters have touted, you can’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies. Jealousy feeds insecurities that feed accusations that eventually lead to lawsuits.
Eisenberg is fantastic as the egotistical, neurotic, and highly intelligent Mark Zuckerberg, but the true breakout performance of the film has to be that of Andrew Garfield, who has been cast to play Spiderman in the next trilogy of the very popular film series. The British actor who was born and raised in Los Angeles has an understated charisma and appears very capable of becoming a leading man. He infuses Eduardo with class and humanism as he tries to be the friend Zuckerberg doesn’t think he needs.
The film is told largely through flashbacks during a deposition hearing between the parties involved in the lawsuits. Director Fincher skillfully allows his characters to drive the film, letting the story unfold in telling scenes, giving the characters ample room to shine without becoming preachy or resorting to grandstanding.
The characters, despite their flaws, do come across as very believable and sympathetic, even though it’s difficult to imagine going from students to inventors of a pop culture phenomenon, to billionaires in just a few short years. Very few corporations that become dominant in their industry do so without critics, challengers, and those that claim they were responsible for whatever success a company gained.
While The Social Network does not overtly place blame, the light it shines on Zuckerberg isn’t altogether flattering. Surprisingly, the film does not go to the extreme with tech talk. It instead focuses on the relationship between the characters and how they handled the drastic and sudden changes in their lives brought on by a simple program called Face Mash, which became the basis for Facebook.
Strong supporting work in the film combined with the great performances of the lead characters makes The Social Network”a very solid and entertaining film that, for my money, is one of the better films of the year.
While it would be easy to jump to judgment and brand many in the film as egotistical rich people who should be grateful for what they have, I remembered that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I wondered just how well any of us in the audience would react if we were ever faced with a similar situation.
Kaz (232 KP) rated The Finisher (Vega Jane #1) in Books
Nov 5, 2019
I'm a fan of Fantasy and Sci-fi and, in a recent conversation with a friend on the subject of reading, they recommended and lent me, the 'Vega Jane' Series.
Book one started with great promise. Vega Jane and the rest of the characters were very well formed and I liked the initial underlining feminist message, running throughout the story.
However, I found many problems with this novel. Firstly, the writing was a major problem for me, particularly the vocabulary that was used by the characters.
Wormwood is supposedly a fictional place, on an unknown planet. So it didn't come to surprise, that the characters used a fictional language.
The problem with that was, when a character used a fictional word, as a reader, you had to hazard a guess at to what the characters were talking about. Also, made up words were used, where they weren't particularly necessary. For example, ''Lights' were 'days' and 'slivers' were 'time'. For me, it wasn't entirely necessary to use alternative words for these things and this vocabulary was being thrown in, to try and make the setting of the story, more interesting. I would have preferred the use of fictitious words for some of the more exotic things, found in the environment of Wormwood.
Also to confuse things even further, more modern words like 'bloke' were used, which gave this weird mish mash, between the modern and the fantasy world, the book took place in. I think what David Baldacci was trying to do, was to make the situation and characters more relatable to its predominately teenage audience. What this combination of language actually did, was to cause me to step out of the world that was being created, rather than being drawn into it.
The plot was generally good. Although, as Vega was learning more about her powers, there were no real explanations as to why she had them. I know this is a series and I suppose that during the course of the novels, there will be more explanation, but I felt like something should have been explained.
Also, Vega inexplicably finds weapons at the exact times she needs them, without any explanation about where they came from. It was as if David Baldacci found Vega in a tight spot, so he decided to drop weapons from the sky. For me, that wasn't logical and was a bit lazy on the writer's part.
I did enjoy the tension which ran through the book and that kept me reading until the very end. I was fully prepared, as I neared the end of book one, to continue reading the rest of the series. However, the last three chapters totally put me off reading the rest of the books, for several reasons.
Firstly, Vega Jane was a strong female character, who had guts and fought to survive. So it was totally out of character, at the end, for her to start worrying about what she looked like and what boys thought of her. To me, that totally contradicted the message that the rest of the book was trying to send.
Also the resolution to the novel, like some of the other elements in this book, seemed to come from no where. I felt totally disappointed at the weak ending.
This novel had interesting promise and a great female protagonist, but it missed the mark entirely for me.
If you like reading fantasy novels, with strong female characters, I wouldn't suggest reading this. Read the 'Hunger Games' Trilogy instead.
Book one started with great promise. Vega Jane and the rest of the characters were very well formed and I liked the initial underlining feminist message, running throughout the story.
However, I found many problems with this novel. Firstly, the writing was a major problem for me, particularly the vocabulary that was used by the characters.
Wormwood is supposedly a fictional place, on an unknown planet. So it didn't come to surprise, that the characters used a fictional language.
The problem with that was, when a character used a fictional word, as a reader, you had to hazard a guess at to what the characters were talking about. Also, made up words were used, where they weren't particularly necessary. For example, ''Lights' were 'days' and 'slivers' were 'time'. For me, it wasn't entirely necessary to use alternative words for these things and this vocabulary was being thrown in, to try and make the setting of the story, more interesting. I would have preferred the use of fictitious words for some of the more exotic things, found in the environment of Wormwood.
Also to confuse things even further, more modern words like 'bloke' were used, which gave this weird mish mash, between the modern and the fantasy world, the book took place in. I think what David Baldacci was trying to do, was to make the situation and characters more relatable to its predominately teenage audience. What this combination of language actually did, was to cause me to step out of the world that was being created, rather than being drawn into it.
The plot was generally good. Although, as Vega was learning more about her powers, there were no real explanations as to why she had them. I know this is a series and I suppose that during the course of the novels, there will be more explanation, but I felt like something should have been explained.
Also, Vega inexplicably finds weapons at the exact times she needs them, without any explanation about where they came from. It was as if David Baldacci found Vega in a tight spot, so he decided to drop weapons from the sky. For me, that wasn't logical and was a bit lazy on the writer's part.
I did enjoy the tension which ran through the book and that kept me reading until the very end. I was fully prepared, as I neared the end of book one, to continue reading the rest of the series. However, the last three chapters totally put me off reading the rest of the books, for several reasons.
Firstly, Vega Jane was a strong female character, who had guts and fought to survive. So it was totally out of character, at the end, for her to start worrying about what she looked like and what boys thought of her. To me, that totally contradicted the message that the rest of the book was trying to send.
Also the resolution to the novel, like some of the other elements in this book, seemed to come from no where. I felt totally disappointed at the weak ending.
This novel had interesting promise and a great female protagonist, but it missed the mark entirely for me.
If you like reading fantasy novels, with strong female characters, I wouldn't suggest reading this. Read the 'Hunger Games' Trilogy instead.