Search
Search results
Nick Friesen (96 KP) rated Blade Runner (1982) in Movies
Jul 13, 2017
Dark and gorgeous setting (4 more)
Harrison Ford
Thought-provoking premise
That moody Vangelis score
Rutger Hauer
Best in Class Cyberpunk Neo-Noir
Most Sci-Fi fans these days probably rank Blade Runner somewhere in their top five favorites. Its status and influence on Sci-Fi, especially in the Cyberpunk sub-genre, is undeniable. When it was first released in 1982, however, it was not so well appreciated. It was met with polarized reviews and underwhelming domestic box office figures. This was probably due to some misplaced expectations of the movie. The studio erroneously marketed Blade Runner as an action/adventure, and not to mention, Harrison Ford was riding the fame of another Sci-Fi franchise that was much more action-oriented. It's no surprise then, that audiences and critics alike were initially turned off by the slow-burn pacing of detective noir that Blade Runner pulled into a science fiction setting. Today, Blade Runner is a celebrated masterpiece of filmmaking and adored by fans around the world. However, with a sequel coming soon, those new to the franchise might be a little confused due to the existence of multiple versions of the film. Let's clear that up a bit.
Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.
Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.
If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.
Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.
Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.
If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.
Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Hate U Give (2018) in Movies
Feb 11, 2019
Masterpiece, One of the Best of 2018
After witnessing a murder, black high school student Starr Carter (Amandla Stenberg) decides to stand up against racism while dealing with her own internal conflict of self-identity.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
The toughest part about critiquing is having to say something isn’t perfect, but not really having any ideas as to how to fix it. The beginning was…good. Characters are introduced as you meet the Carter family for the first time. It definitely could have been better, however. I felt it dragged on for slightly too long, but at the same time I understand director George Tillman Jr. was going for an emotional connection. While it could’ve been better, it is solid enough of a start to get you into the movie.
Characters: 10
The film revolves around Starr and her family. Each family member contributes to the overall dynamic of the story. You can see how Starr is shaped by her strong father Maverick (Russell Hornsby) who is all about standing up for what’s right and protecting the family at all costs. Her mother Lisa (Regina Hall) just wants Starr to have a better life than herself growing up. Starr recognizes that and tries to embrace it, but also feels guilty while doing so. It was therapeutic watching Starr evolve into a woman after feeling so powerless in the earlygoings of the film. All of these characters, even those outside of the Carter family, have depth and add value to the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 8
Memorability: 10
The Hate U Give is packed with twists and turns that you don’t expect or see coming. It really is a small world that we live in, too small to go around hating each other. The film succeeds by showing us just how small this world is. There are a number of memorable scenes that remain etched in my brain long after watching the movie. It’s one of those films that stays with you, leaving you with cause for much thought.
Pace: 9
There were a few spots where the build-up was a bit slow, but it’s not a major issue that impacts the movie as a whole. This goes back to what I was mentioning in the beginning. Not perfect, but I’m not sure how much I would have done differently than Tillman Jr. For the most part, the movie is highly entertaining and has a consistent flow.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Ended just the way it should, not with some fairytale conclusion, but reality. Thank God for justice, but the movie leaves us with the full understanding that there is still work yet to be done. Very strong messaging.
Overall: 95
The Hate U Give is not your typical race war movie as it pushes for peace in coexistence and challenges the ideas of self-identification. The dynamics involved here are truly interesting as you see a black vs. white vs. hood life going on and what happens when lines cross. With a solid cast and story, it is not a surprise that this is one of my favorite films of 2018.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
The toughest part about critiquing is having to say something isn’t perfect, but not really having any ideas as to how to fix it. The beginning was…good. Characters are introduced as you meet the Carter family for the first time. It definitely could have been better, however. I felt it dragged on for slightly too long, but at the same time I understand director George Tillman Jr. was going for an emotional connection. While it could’ve been better, it is solid enough of a start to get you into the movie.
Characters: 10
The film revolves around Starr and her family. Each family member contributes to the overall dynamic of the story. You can see how Starr is shaped by her strong father Maverick (Russell Hornsby) who is all about standing up for what’s right and protecting the family at all costs. Her mother Lisa (Regina Hall) just wants Starr to have a better life than herself growing up. Starr recognizes that and tries to embrace it, but also feels guilty while doing so. It was therapeutic watching Starr evolve into a woman after feeling so powerless in the earlygoings of the film. All of these characters, even those outside of the Carter family, have depth and add value to the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 8
Memorability: 10
The Hate U Give is packed with twists and turns that you don’t expect or see coming. It really is a small world that we live in, too small to go around hating each other. The film succeeds by showing us just how small this world is. There are a number of memorable scenes that remain etched in my brain long after watching the movie. It’s one of those films that stays with you, leaving you with cause for much thought.
Pace: 9
There were a few spots where the build-up was a bit slow, but it’s not a major issue that impacts the movie as a whole. This goes back to what I was mentioning in the beginning. Not perfect, but I’m not sure how much I would have done differently than Tillman Jr. For the most part, the movie is highly entertaining and has a consistent flow.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Ended just the way it should, not with some fairytale conclusion, but reality. Thank God for justice, but the movie leaves us with the full understanding that there is still work yet to be done. Very strong messaging.
Overall: 95
The Hate U Give is not your typical race war movie as it pushes for peace in coexistence and challenges the ideas of self-identification. The dynamics involved here are truly interesting as you see a black vs. white vs. hood life going on and what happens when lines cross. With a solid cast and story, it is not a surprise that this is one of my favorite films of 2018.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Martian (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Ridley Scott's best film since Alien
It’s safe to say that Ridley Scott knows his way around a camera. From Alien to Gladiator, the director has brought to the silver screen some of the greatest films of all time, heck even Prometheus wasn’t that bad in a muddled kind of way.
Now, after the underwhelming Exodus: Gods & Kings, Scott returns to the director’s chair doing what he does best, sci-fi. But is The Martian as good as his earlier works?
Thankfully, the answer is yes and The Martian proves how good the director can be when he’s given the right material to work with. Andy Weir’s 2011 novel of the same name lends a good starting point and Scott ends up with his best film since 1979’s masterpiece, Alien – that’s no joke.
Matt Damon stars as Mark Wateny, an astronaut and botanist left stranded on Mars after a mission goes horribly wrong. After being left behind by his colleagues, played by talent including Jessica Chastain (The Hurt Locker) and Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Mark must find a way to survive on the red planet until a rescue operation can reach him – years later.
Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover and Jeff Daniels also star as NASA directors, scientists and astrophysicists. Despite their limited screen time, each brings something to the table with a spirited performance.
Scott directs The Martian with a huge amount of confidence, clearly helped by his time on Alien and Prometheus, and his cinematography is absolute perfection. Never has Mars looked this good on film. The desolate, arid landscape is breath-taking and the numerous aerial shots that feature Damon’s character only add to the emptiness.
The special effects too are wonderful. CGI is mixed with amazing practical props that integrate so well together that it’s impossible to tell the difference. The numerous spacecraft, living quarters and vehicles all feel so real and continue to add more credibility to The Martian’s cause.
Damon is also second-to-none and over the course of the film develops new personality traits, all due to the intense stress of being stranded 50 million miles away from Earth. The film lives and dies on his efforts and thankfully, the ever-reliable actor gives one of his best performances in years.
Unfortunately, Jessica Chastain doesn’t have too much to do until the finale and feels a little side-lined – she has won an Oscar after all, though Damon’s magnetic presence is enough to forgive some of the shortcomings in other characters.
The script is, on the whole, very good indeed. Despite only featuring one character for the majority of its 140 minute run-time, The Martian is funny, witty and helped by a fantastic disco soundtrack that has hits from the likes of ABBA dotted about.
Overall, The Martian is sci-fi film-making at its peak. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautiful looking and deeply involving film that features the very best in special effects and scientific accuracy. With Matt Damon’s dry humour and emotional depth, it’s a winner all round.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/04/ridley-scotts-best-film-since-alien-the-martian-review/
Now, after the underwhelming Exodus: Gods & Kings, Scott returns to the director’s chair doing what he does best, sci-fi. But is The Martian as good as his earlier works?
Thankfully, the answer is yes and The Martian proves how good the director can be when he’s given the right material to work with. Andy Weir’s 2011 novel of the same name lends a good starting point and Scott ends up with his best film since 1979’s masterpiece, Alien – that’s no joke.
Matt Damon stars as Mark Wateny, an astronaut and botanist left stranded on Mars after a mission goes horribly wrong. After being left behind by his colleagues, played by talent including Jessica Chastain (The Hurt Locker) and Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Mark must find a way to survive on the red planet until a rescue operation can reach him – years later.
Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover and Jeff Daniels also star as NASA directors, scientists and astrophysicists. Despite their limited screen time, each brings something to the table with a spirited performance.
Scott directs The Martian with a huge amount of confidence, clearly helped by his time on Alien and Prometheus, and his cinematography is absolute perfection. Never has Mars looked this good on film. The desolate, arid landscape is breath-taking and the numerous aerial shots that feature Damon’s character only add to the emptiness.
The special effects too are wonderful. CGI is mixed with amazing practical props that integrate so well together that it’s impossible to tell the difference. The numerous spacecraft, living quarters and vehicles all feel so real and continue to add more credibility to The Martian’s cause.
Damon is also second-to-none and over the course of the film develops new personality traits, all due to the intense stress of being stranded 50 million miles away from Earth. The film lives and dies on his efforts and thankfully, the ever-reliable actor gives one of his best performances in years.
Unfortunately, Jessica Chastain doesn’t have too much to do until the finale and feels a little side-lined – she has won an Oscar after all, though Damon’s magnetic presence is enough to forgive some of the shortcomings in other characters.
The script is, on the whole, very good indeed. Despite only featuring one character for the majority of its 140 minute run-time, The Martian is funny, witty and helped by a fantastic disco soundtrack that has hits from the likes of ABBA dotted about.
Overall, The Martian is sci-fi film-making at its peak. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautiful looking and deeply involving film that features the very best in special effects and scientific accuracy. With Matt Damon’s dry humour and emotional depth, it’s a winner all round.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/04/ridley-scotts-best-film-since-alien-the-martian-review/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Misery in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Also read my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/misery-by-stephen-king
<b><i>Annie Annie oh Annie please please no please dont Annie I swear to you Ill be good I swear to God Ill be good please give me a chance to be good OH ANNIE PLEASE LET ME BE GOOD -
Just a little pain. Then this nasty business will be behind us for good Paul.</b></i>
Well hot fucking damn. Is this the best book Ive read all year? <b>I think it might be.</b> I am officially a Stephen King fan. A Stephen King convert as my mother is calling me. Misery is a goddamn masterpiece. Its <i>so</i> tense. I dont know how anyone can write so well that Im actually squirming. <b>LEGIT SQUIRMING AS I READ.</b>
Misery is about a bestselling author, Paul Sheldon, who, after celebrating his completion of his next (and best) book, drinks a little too much champagne and gets himself into a nasty car accident in the middle of nowhere. He wakes to find his legs shattered but splintered (splinted???) in a mysterious house. Luckily, or unluckily, hes found himself saved and in the capable hands of his number one fan and ex-nurse, Annie Wilkes.
I put off reading Misery for, oh I dont know, maybe 5 years? I watched the film, of course, because disliking a film can be down to a number of variables, the wrong director, actors you dislike, bad script etc, but not liking a book, <i>a Stephen King book</i>, is down to one and one thing only, the author. And I was <i>so</i> terrified I wouldnt like Stephen King! Honestly, terrified is this right word for it. I didnt want to turn around in a house, no, a society, that claims Stephen King is a modern day Charles Dickens, of sorts, and say nah, not that into him myself. But lo and behold, I ended up liking both the film and the book, thank Christ. The book more so than the film, but isnt that usually the case? Although the actors for both Paul and Annie in the film version were <i>spot on.</i>
I dont think Ive ever been so vocal whilst reading a book. Misery had me yelping and oohing and arring and laughing and yucking all the way through. Kings writing is so vivid you <i>are</i> Paul Sheldon for the duration of the book. Youre Paul, rolling around in his wheelchair, holding your breath and crying and sweating, hoping that car you hear isnt Annies. Hoping shes holding those Godsent Novril tablets every few hours to subdue your pain. Wondering how the hell youre ever going to be able to escape. You completely immerse yourself in the nail biting story, page by page. This is a perfect novel from start to finish, thats all I have left to say.
If youve never read Stephen King before, start with Misery. <b>I double donkey dare you.</b>
<b><i>Annie Annie oh Annie please please no please dont Annie I swear to you Ill be good I swear to God Ill be good please give me a chance to be good OH ANNIE PLEASE LET ME BE GOOD -
Just a little pain. Then this nasty business will be behind us for good Paul.</b></i>
Well hot fucking damn. Is this the best book Ive read all year? <b>I think it might be.</b> I am officially a Stephen King fan. A Stephen King convert as my mother is calling me. Misery is a goddamn masterpiece. Its <i>so</i> tense. I dont know how anyone can write so well that Im actually squirming. <b>LEGIT SQUIRMING AS I READ.</b>
Misery is about a bestselling author, Paul Sheldon, who, after celebrating his completion of his next (and best) book, drinks a little too much champagne and gets himself into a nasty car accident in the middle of nowhere. He wakes to find his legs shattered but splintered (splinted???) in a mysterious house. Luckily, or unluckily, hes found himself saved and in the capable hands of his number one fan and ex-nurse, Annie Wilkes.
I put off reading Misery for, oh I dont know, maybe 5 years? I watched the film, of course, because disliking a film can be down to a number of variables, the wrong director, actors you dislike, bad script etc, but not liking a book, <i>a Stephen King book</i>, is down to one and one thing only, the author. And I was <i>so</i> terrified I wouldnt like Stephen King! Honestly, terrified is this right word for it. I didnt want to turn around in a house, no, a society, that claims Stephen King is a modern day Charles Dickens, of sorts, and say nah, not that into him myself. But lo and behold, I ended up liking both the film and the book, thank Christ. The book more so than the film, but isnt that usually the case? Although the actors for both Paul and Annie in the film version were <i>spot on.</i>
I dont think Ive ever been so vocal whilst reading a book. Misery had me yelping and oohing and arring and laughing and yucking all the way through. Kings writing is so vivid you <i>are</i> Paul Sheldon for the duration of the book. Youre Paul, rolling around in his wheelchair, holding your breath and crying and sweating, hoping that car you hear isnt Annies. Hoping shes holding those Godsent Novril tablets every few hours to subdue your pain. Wondering how the hell youre ever going to be able to escape. You completely immerse yourself in the nail biting story, page by page. This is a perfect novel from start to finish, thats all I have left to say.
If youve never read Stephen King before, start with Misery. <b>I double donkey dare you.</b>
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Vertigo (1958) in Movies
Oct 20, 2019
An ex cop is asked to surveil the wife of a friend who seems to be exhibiting erratic behavior. Unfortunately, Scottie had to retire from active duty after an incident of vertigo caused the death of another officer. He takes the job and wanders with the woman as she visits an art gallery and cemetery among others. She inexplicably one day decides to hurl her body into San Francisco Bay and luckily he is there to retrieve her.
Once revived, Madeleine is no worse for wear, but does not remember the incident or the circumstances of her rescue at the hands of Scottie. They form a quick friendship that turns quickly into lust and a deepening feeling of obsession for Scottie. One day, they take a trip to Mission San Juan Bautista based on a nightmare vision described by Madeleine. She climbs the bell tower, but Scottie is unable to follow restrained by his vertigo and, unfortunately, has to just watch as she plunges to her death.
Afterwards, an investigation reveals Madeleine had been exhibiting irrational behavior which was the cause of her husband's concern in hiring Scottie, so her death is ruled a suicide. Scottie is distraught over the loss and takes consolation in his friend, Midge. On the mend, Scottie frequents locations Madeleine had visited previously hoping this would offer consolation to his grief. He meets a familiar, yet strange woman there.
Vertigo is usually not only considered Hitchcock's best film, but also on many critic lists as the greatest film of all time alongside Citizen Kane and Casablanca.
The movie does have a lot to admire including its complicated, intriguing screenplay which had smart discussions with its characters with lots of exposition given at various points challenging the audience to keep up. The film's situations are interesting and the plot keeps going at a vicious pace through the twists to the end.
I learned recently Hitchcock diva Vera Miles was initially cast for the role of Madeleine, but had to withdraw as she became pregnant before filming so Kim Novak replaced her. Due to several unforeseen delays, Miles had given birth and could've been available; however Hitchcock forged ahead with Novak anyways.
The harrowing initial scene where Scottie chases a random perpetrator across blackened rooftops only to stumble and discover his title affliction really sets the tone for the film both with the cinematography which is stunning and the blistering score at full pace.
Picking an absolute favorite Hitchcock movie has always been difficult for me. Vertigo would probably rank 3rd behind Psycho and The Birds, but still all masterpieces. I love the fact as in other Hitchcock classics, you think you know where the story is going, but he always keeps you guessing.
A magnificent performance by Jimmy Stewart as well. Well deserved of the praise he has gotten over the years for it. He is intense, charming and morose throughout the film which makes him electrifying to watch. His work with Hitchcock including Rope and Rear Window is among his best work.
A masterpiece.
Once revived, Madeleine is no worse for wear, but does not remember the incident or the circumstances of her rescue at the hands of Scottie. They form a quick friendship that turns quickly into lust and a deepening feeling of obsession for Scottie. One day, they take a trip to Mission San Juan Bautista based on a nightmare vision described by Madeleine. She climbs the bell tower, but Scottie is unable to follow restrained by his vertigo and, unfortunately, has to just watch as she plunges to her death.
Afterwards, an investigation reveals Madeleine had been exhibiting irrational behavior which was the cause of her husband's concern in hiring Scottie, so her death is ruled a suicide. Scottie is distraught over the loss and takes consolation in his friend, Midge. On the mend, Scottie frequents locations Madeleine had visited previously hoping this would offer consolation to his grief. He meets a familiar, yet strange woman there.
Vertigo is usually not only considered Hitchcock's best film, but also on many critic lists as the greatest film of all time alongside Citizen Kane and Casablanca.
The movie does have a lot to admire including its complicated, intriguing screenplay which had smart discussions with its characters with lots of exposition given at various points challenging the audience to keep up. The film's situations are interesting and the plot keeps going at a vicious pace through the twists to the end.
I learned recently Hitchcock diva Vera Miles was initially cast for the role of Madeleine, but had to withdraw as she became pregnant before filming so Kim Novak replaced her. Due to several unforeseen delays, Miles had given birth and could've been available; however Hitchcock forged ahead with Novak anyways.
The harrowing initial scene where Scottie chases a random perpetrator across blackened rooftops only to stumble and discover his title affliction really sets the tone for the film both with the cinematography which is stunning and the blistering score at full pace.
Picking an absolute favorite Hitchcock movie has always been difficult for me. Vertigo would probably rank 3rd behind Psycho and The Birds, but still all masterpieces. I love the fact as in other Hitchcock classics, you think you know where the story is going, but he always keeps you guessing.
A magnificent performance by Jimmy Stewart as well. Well deserved of the praise he has gotten over the years for it. He is intense, charming and morose throughout the film which makes him electrifying to watch. His work with Hitchcock including Rope and Rear Window is among his best work.
A masterpiece.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Boneseeker in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Okay, I have a question: who else, while reading this book (if you did), kept imagining Sherlock Holmes as Benedict Cumberbatch? And I don't even have cable to watch it, nor do I have time to watch Masterpiece Mystery....
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_kJ9pDaSzoQ/U2VHyusffEI/AAAAAAAADKw/2xCShmhbaAg/s1600/turnups.gif"; height="153" width="320">
Although imagining THE Sherlock Holmes having a kid is probably impossible. Yet in Boneseeker, it's the next generation of Holmes and Watson, only it's not the legendary duo (wait, they're legendary, right?). Instead of being set in London, the story is mainly set in Philadelphia and New York. Arabella, Sherlock's daughter, and Henry, John Watson's son, are on an expedition to find out if a giant hand found are from a Neanderthal or from Nephilim.
Boneseeker is actually quite scary. Sausage murder? Oh dear. But essentially the book is focused on 4 missing scientists who were on the hunt to prove what the hand really is in said expedition above. I think they were also looking for more giant bones hey, can't give anything away, eh? before they actually vanished into nowhere.
The notes at the end were really helpful. I was planning on doing some of my own research when I had the time, whether at school or at the library, but then I finished reading Boneseeker and saw "AUTHOR'S NOTES." Thus resulting in me going "Fantastic! Less research and Bing crap for me!" Search engines usually just give a) a bunch of crap, b) something entirely different from what you're searching for, or c) "I'm sorry, but that search term doesn't exist. Try again." That's like "Oh, GAME OVER." *plays funky music* I think my mom once said Google told her "Hahaha, you're so funny. What kind of search term is that?" Seems legit mom. I think that's just Option A or B for you.
<img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MPfbXCfaO6U/U2VIn0kF3WI/AAAAAAAADK4/nihGmv8QglM/s1600/seemslegit.gif"; height="180" width="320">
What's disappointing? Sherlock doesn't make much an appearance, to the dismay of Sherlock fans, unless you're just a fan of John Watson. He makes quite the appearance for the majority of the book. Oh, and it's a stand alone. *sigh* I was so hoping for a sequel. On the bright side, no waiting! Isn't that great, with so many series of books popping up by the day?
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_4sSv6F_1eg/U2VJFOLi7qI/AAAAAAAADLE/I9G2jTU62xc/s1600/too-many-people.gif"; height="156" width="320">
Despite the fact Sherlock doesn't make a huge appearance, mystery fans will find this an enjoyable reads. Oh, and maybe for those who enjoy reading about blood and gore...
EDIT: I stand corrected. This is NOT a stand alone (according to author)
------------------
Advance review copy provided by publisher
Original Rating: 4.5
Original Review posted on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/06/arc-review-boneseeker-by-brynn-chapman.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_kJ9pDaSzoQ/U2VHyusffEI/AAAAAAAADKw/2xCShmhbaAg/s1600/turnups.gif"; height="153" width="320">
Although imagining THE Sherlock Holmes having a kid is probably impossible. Yet in Boneseeker, it's the next generation of Holmes and Watson, only it's not the legendary duo (wait, they're legendary, right?). Instead of being set in London, the story is mainly set in Philadelphia and New York. Arabella, Sherlock's daughter, and Henry, John Watson's son, are on an expedition to find out if a giant hand found are from a Neanderthal or from Nephilim.
Boneseeker is actually quite scary. Sausage murder? Oh dear. But essentially the book is focused on 4 missing scientists who were on the hunt to prove what the hand really is in said expedition above. I think they were also looking for more giant bones hey, can't give anything away, eh? before they actually vanished into nowhere.
The notes at the end were really helpful. I was planning on doing some of my own research when I had the time, whether at school or at the library, but then I finished reading Boneseeker and saw "AUTHOR'S NOTES." Thus resulting in me going "Fantastic! Less research and Bing crap for me!" Search engines usually just give a) a bunch of crap, b) something entirely different from what you're searching for, or c) "I'm sorry, but that search term doesn't exist. Try again." That's like "Oh, GAME OVER." *plays funky music* I think my mom once said Google told her "Hahaha, you're so funny. What kind of search term is that?" Seems legit mom. I think that's just Option A or B for you.
<img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MPfbXCfaO6U/U2VIn0kF3WI/AAAAAAAADK4/nihGmv8QglM/s1600/seemslegit.gif"; height="180" width="320">
What's disappointing? Sherlock doesn't make much an appearance, to the dismay of Sherlock fans, unless you're just a fan of John Watson. He makes quite the appearance for the majority of the book. Oh, and it's a stand alone. *sigh* I was so hoping for a sequel. On the bright side, no waiting! Isn't that great, with so many series of books popping up by the day?
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_4sSv6F_1eg/U2VJFOLi7qI/AAAAAAAADLE/I9G2jTU62xc/s1600/too-many-people.gif"; height="156" width="320">
Despite the fact Sherlock doesn't make a huge appearance, mystery fans will find this an enjoyable reads. Oh, and maybe for those who enjoy reading about blood and gore...
EDIT: I stand corrected. This is NOT a stand alone (according to author)
------------------
Advance review copy provided by publisher
Original Rating: 4.5
Original Review posted on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/06/arc-review-boneseeker-by-brynn-chapman.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
There are certain classic movies that should never be recreated or warrant a sequel. The 1939 cinematic musical masterpiece The Wizard of Oz happens to be one of them. I consider this movie to be the birth of the modern movie film industry, it set the standard for all movies to measure themselves against for many years to come. For those who have been living under a rock and are not familiar with the story of the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy, a young farm girl from Kansas, along with her dog Toto, get whisked in their house by a twister to the land of Oz, a magical fantasyland, where Dorothy wants nothing more than to return home. Per the advice of a Good Witch and some munchkins, and with a new pair of ruby slippers, Dorothy and Toto follow the yellow brick road to the Emerald City to meet the Wizard, who will hopefully help the two make their way back to Kansas. Along the way, she befriends a scarecrow in need of a brain, a tin man who is lacking a heart, and a cowardly lion desperate for courage. They each decide to join Dorothy on her adventure where she defeats the Wicked Witch of the West, who wanted those magical ruby slippers and in the end reaching the Emerald City and safely finds her way back home.
The Legend of Oz: Dorothy’s Return is 3-D animated musical follow up that begins shortly after Dorothy (Lea Michele) returns home from the Land of Oz. The aftermath of the tornado has left her hometown in shambles. Dorothy fights to try to convince everyone that this is their home and it can all be repaired despite the government demanding everyone to vacate the town and seek refuge elsewhere. Back in Oz, the Jester (Martin Short) who happens to be the brother of the Wicked Witch of the West, has sought to rule the World of Oz. He and his band of flying monkeys (same ones from the original movie), begin their reign of terror turning the leaders from all corners of the land into marionettes. The beloved trio of Scarecrow (Dan Akroyd), the Tin Man (Kelsey Grammer) and the Cowardly Lion (James Belushi) believe the only person who can stop the Jester’s tirade is Dorothy. With the help of Scarecrow’s new invention, a machine that can bring Dorothy back over the rainbow and to the land of Oz, they summon for Dorothy. Instead of arriving to the Emerald City, Dorothy arrives in a far off land where she tries to locate the yellow brick road, knowing it will lead her to the Emerald City. On her journey we are introduced to new lands, new people and creatures, new songs, and a new adventure and obstacles that she must overcome before it’s too late.
As a standalone movie, this is a great kids film, one the whole family can enjoy. Lots of fun musical numbers, a mediocre storyline, engaging characters, and beautiful scenery. I would recommend watching this movie with zero expectations and do not attempt to compare it to the original movie, it doesn’t hold a torch!
The Legend of Oz: Dorothy’s Return is 3-D animated musical follow up that begins shortly after Dorothy (Lea Michele) returns home from the Land of Oz. The aftermath of the tornado has left her hometown in shambles. Dorothy fights to try to convince everyone that this is their home and it can all be repaired despite the government demanding everyone to vacate the town and seek refuge elsewhere. Back in Oz, the Jester (Martin Short) who happens to be the brother of the Wicked Witch of the West, has sought to rule the World of Oz. He and his band of flying monkeys (same ones from the original movie), begin their reign of terror turning the leaders from all corners of the land into marionettes. The beloved trio of Scarecrow (Dan Akroyd), the Tin Man (Kelsey Grammer) and the Cowardly Lion (James Belushi) believe the only person who can stop the Jester’s tirade is Dorothy. With the help of Scarecrow’s new invention, a machine that can bring Dorothy back over the rainbow and to the land of Oz, they summon for Dorothy. Instead of arriving to the Emerald City, Dorothy arrives in a far off land where she tries to locate the yellow brick road, knowing it will lead her to the Emerald City. On her journey we are introduced to new lands, new people and creatures, new songs, and a new adventure and obstacles that she must overcome before it’s too late.
As a standalone movie, this is a great kids film, one the whole family can enjoy. Lots of fun musical numbers, a mediocre storyline, engaging characters, and beautiful scenery. I would recommend watching this movie with zero expectations and do not attempt to compare it to the original movie, it doesn’t hold a torch!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Life Of Pi (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
When I heard that one of my favorite books was being converted into a movie, I was a little skeptical. Add one of my favorite directors, Ang Lee, and my skepticism started to recede. As many know, Lee is renowned for his artistic vision and cinematography. I fell in love with his vision of “Sense and Sensibility,” “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” and “Brokeback Mountain.” To me, if there was a director who could capture the beauty and imagery of this book, it was Lee.
The movie and the book are great parallels of one another. The story revolves around a young Indian boy named Piscine (“Pool” in French) who spent much of his youth in Pondicherry, a French colony of India. Much of the book, and movie, include flash-backs of Pi’s life in India – the ridicule of his name, his father’s ownership of a zoo, etc. When Pi and his family decide to move to Canada due to political concerns (the book covers much more of this, including Pi’s exploration of various spiritualties/religions), they are chartered on a ship. En route, they encounter a fierce storm which capsizes their vessel, leaving Pi on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger, a hyena, an injured zebra, and an orangutan.
Being the only human on board with said animals, Pi naturally fears for his welfare. He observes the hyena killing the injured zebra and then turning on the orangutan. The orangutan, as one should note, cares for Pi in a very motherly fashion (remember that Pi’s whole family had drowned in the ship), and her death was very difficult for Pi to endure. Eventually, the hyena succumbs to death by the tiger. As further explained in the movie and novel, Pi names the tiger “Richard Parker” and the two of them set out to endure their lives aboard the ship in some strange sort of symbiotic relationship.
Lee’s vision transforms this novel into a brilliant masterpiece. Like “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” you will be awed by the cinematography and artistic interpretation he presents. The young actors employed for the role of Pi (Gautam Belur, Ayush Tandon, Suraj Sharma & Irrfan Khan) are downright perfect and I particularly enjoyed Gerard Depardieu as the grizzled and difficult French cook (not a difficult stretch for him as one can imagine). Overall, as an avid lover of Yann Martel’s novel and Ang Lee’s work, I can say this is a beautiful movie and one many will enjoy (even if you haven’t read the novel – which you MUST do).
My only complaint is that while it is a beautiful representation of CGI technology, sometimes it looked a bit too manufactured and fantastical. Their work on the tiger, however, was downright genius (and I personally hate when they create CGI animals instead of working with the real thing – but in this instance it worked very well). The ending and symbolism of this work is what makes it truly a piece of art. If you’re a fan of “Inception” and “The Sixth Sense,” you will enjoy the twist at the end.
Overall, I think this is a lovely representation of the novel and a great movie all around. I highly suggest checking it out.
The movie and the book are great parallels of one another. The story revolves around a young Indian boy named Piscine (“Pool” in French) who spent much of his youth in Pondicherry, a French colony of India. Much of the book, and movie, include flash-backs of Pi’s life in India – the ridicule of his name, his father’s ownership of a zoo, etc. When Pi and his family decide to move to Canada due to political concerns (the book covers much more of this, including Pi’s exploration of various spiritualties/religions), they are chartered on a ship. En route, they encounter a fierce storm which capsizes their vessel, leaving Pi on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger, a hyena, an injured zebra, and an orangutan.
Being the only human on board with said animals, Pi naturally fears for his welfare. He observes the hyena killing the injured zebra and then turning on the orangutan. The orangutan, as one should note, cares for Pi in a very motherly fashion (remember that Pi’s whole family had drowned in the ship), and her death was very difficult for Pi to endure. Eventually, the hyena succumbs to death by the tiger. As further explained in the movie and novel, Pi names the tiger “Richard Parker” and the two of them set out to endure their lives aboard the ship in some strange sort of symbiotic relationship.
Lee’s vision transforms this novel into a brilliant masterpiece. Like “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” you will be awed by the cinematography and artistic interpretation he presents. The young actors employed for the role of Pi (Gautam Belur, Ayush Tandon, Suraj Sharma & Irrfan Khan) are downright perfect and I particularly enjoyed Gerard Depardieu as the grizzled and difficult French cook (not a difficult stretch for him as one can imagine). Overall, as an avid lover of Yann Martel’s novel and Ang Lee’s work, I can say this is a beautiful movie and one many will enjoy (even if you haven’t read the novel – which you MUST do).
My only complaint is that while it is a beautiful representation of CGI technology, sometimes it looked a bit too manufactured and fantastical. Their work on the tiger, however, was downright genius (and I personally hate when they create CGI animals instead of working with the real thing – but in this instance it worked very well). The ending and symbolism of this work is what makes it truly a piece of art. If you’re a fan of “Inception” and “The Sixth Sense,” you will enjoy the twist at the end.
Overall, I think this is a lovely representation of the novel and a great movie all around. I highly suggest checking it out.
Bible Reina Valera
Book and Lifestyle
App
Bible in Spanish RV (Reina Valera) Version: Reina Valera - Offline do not need an internet...
Make A Scene: Polar Adventure
Games and Education
App
The animated sticker app for children with descriptive audio and fun sound effects! Join over half a...