Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Happy Feet Two (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Mumble is back and dancing his way back into our hearts. Happy Feet Two is a follow up to the 2006 Academy Award winning movie, Happy Feet directed by George Miller. Mumble (Elijah Wood) is now married to Gloria (Alecia “PiNK” Moore, who replaced the late Brittany Murphy) and they have a son, Erik (Ava Acres).
Mumble struggles to help Erik with his insecurities and inability to find his own heart song and dance steps. Erik ends up running away from Emperorland with a couple of friends, following the love struck Ramon (Robin Williams). Unsuccessful in love within Mumble’s penguin community, Ramon decides to head back to Adelieland and falls for Carmen (Sophia Vergara) who, of course, plays hard to get. So begins Ramon’s hilarious attempts at trying to win Carmen’s affection. While on their adventure, Erik and company stumble across Sven (Hank Azaria), a puffin that is mistaken for a penguin who can fly. Erik becomes enamored with Sven’s ability to fly and attempts to follow in Sven’s footsteps.
Once Mumble has found the runaway chicks, he forces them to return to Emperorland. Upon their return to home, they find a landslide has caused an iceberg to shift and ends up trapping their colony with no way out. Mumble must find help before it’s too late. In flies the self-help guru and fraud Sven to come and teach the penguins how to fly. Meanwhile, other animals in peril are an elephant seal (Anthony Lapaglia) and a couple of codependent krill named Will (Brad Pitt) and Bill (Matt Damon) who realized that their only place in life is to provide sustenance for the whales. Unwilling to succumb to their fate, the delusional Will forces the terrified Bill to swim away from their swarm and become omnivores in an attempt to move up the food chain.
In the end all these stories tie together to show a strong sense of community among different species. I do believe George Miller seems to have taken more of a commercialized approach when creating this movie. Miller once again attempts to send an eco-message regarding global warming with Happy Feet Two. Unfortunately the sequel’s message does not create the same emotional and heartfelt impact as its predecessor. Miller focused more on entertaining and visuals and less on the actual storyline which was very choppy and quite odd at times.
The animators definitely give Pixar a run for their money with their amazing Antarctica scenery details, their incredible animal close-up shots, the undersea moments with the krill and spectacular action sequences. The movie may not have had the substance of the first movie; however it was definitely enjoyable to watch. There was lots of dancing, singing and great laugh-out-loud moments; an absolute visual delight.
Mumble struggles to help Erik with his insecurities and inability to find his own heart song and dance steps. Erik ends up running away from Emperorland with a couple of friends, following the love struck Ramon (Robin Williams). Unsuccessful in love within Mumble’s penguin community, Ramon decides to head back to Adelieland and falls for Carmen (Sophia Vergara) who, of course, plays hard to get. So begins Ramon’s hilarious attempts at trying to win Carmen’s affection. While on their adventure, Erik and company stumble across Sven (Hank Azaria), a puffin that is mistaken for a penguin who can fly. Erik becomes enamored with Sven’s ability to fly and attempts to follow in Sven’s footsteps.
Once Mumble has found the runaway chicks, he forces them to return to Emperorland. Upon their return to home, they find a landslide has caused an iceberg to shift and ends up trapping their colony with no way out. Mumble must find help before it’s too late. In flies the self-help guru and fraud Sven to come and teach the penguins how to fly. Meanwhile, other animals in peril are an elephant seal (Anthony Lapaglia) and a couple of codependent krill named Will (Brad Pitt) and Bill (Matt Damon) who realized that their only place in life is to provide sustenance for the whales. Unwilling to succumb to their fate, the delusional Will forces the terrified Bill to swim away from their swarm and become omnivores in an attempt to move up the food chain.
In the end all these stories tie together to show a strong sense of community among different species. I do believe George Miller seems to have taken more of a commercialized approach when creating this movie. Miller once again attempts to send an eco-message regarding global warming with Happy Feet Two. Unfortunately the sequel’s message does not create the same emotional and heartfelt impact as its predecessor. Miller focused more on entertaining and visuals and less on the actual storyline which was very choppy and quite odd at times.
The animators definitely give Pixar a run for their money with their amazing Antarctica scenery details, their incredible animal close-up shots, the undersea moments with the krill and spectacular action sequences. The movie may not have had the substance of the first movie; however it was definitely enjoyable to watch. There was lots of dancing, singing and great laugh-out-loud moments; an absolute visual delight.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Horror Twist On A Classic Comic Book Icon
Brightburn is a 2019 superhero/horror movie produced by James Gunn and Kenneth Huang. It was directed by David Yarovesky with screenplay written by Mark and Brian Gunn. The film was produced by Screen Gems, Stage 6 Films, Troll Court Entertainment, and the H Collective. The movie stars Elizabeth Banks, David Denman, Jackson A. Dunn, Matt Jones and Meredith Hagnar.
Living in Brightburn, Kansas, Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle Breyer (David Denman), a young farm couple, struggle with conceiving a child due to fertility issues. One night, a spaceship falls from the sky near their farm. A baby boy is found inside and the couple decide to adopt him and name him Brandon. Years later, it seems Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) is a typical young boy as he has been raised without the knowledge of his true origin. However this begins to change in very dramatic ways as the spaceship that he arrived in, hidden in a trapdoor in the barn, begins to glow and affect him disturbingly.
This movie was very much horror and with the R-rating it did not disappoint in that category. However for a superhero movie, I definitely felt it could have been better, especially when it came to the storytelling. I felt like the plot wasn't structured enough and it didn't always feel like it was going somewhere except for what it had shown through the trailers. You know, like it showed in the trailers the outcome and the journey to that outcome wasn't as fun or surprising as I thought it was going to be. The kill scenes though were very brutal, which for some reason I wasn't expecting as much, I guess because the one doing them is this super-powered 12 year old. But this was an awesome concept on a very familiar story that everyone has grown up with or heard, which is basically Superman. There are comics from DC and of Superman like Red Son Superman; where it's a "what if" Superman had landed in Russia instead of United States, and there is a Justice League animated film where instead of Superman, Kal-El, the baby that escapes Krypton is Generel Zod's child and instead of landing in Kansas he lands in New Mexico and is raised by Mexican migrant farmers. But I don't think there has been a story to explore this type of different way Superman could have grown up and it was shockingly entertaining to say the least. The mid-credits scene was really cool to see as well and know that the cinematic universe for Brightburn could expand if it does well financially. I'm thinking that it won't with stiff competition such as Aladdin and John Wick 3 but who knows. I give this film a 6/10.
Living in Brightburn, Kansas, Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle Breyer (David Denman), a young farm couple, struggle with conceiving a child due to fertility issues. One night, a spaceship falls from the sky near their farm. A baby boy is found inside and the couple decide to adopt him and name him Brandon. Years later, it seems Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) is a typical young boy as he has been raised without the knowledge of his true origin. However this begins to change in very dramatic ways as the spaceship that he arrived in, hidden in a trapdoor in the barn, begins to glow and affect him disturbingly.
This movie was very much horror and with the R-rating it did not disappoint in that category. However for a superhero movie, I definitely felt it could have been better, especially when it came to the storytelling. I felt like the plot wasn't structured enough and it didn't always feel like it was going somewhere except for what it had shown through the trailers. You know, like it showed in the trailers the outcome and the journey to that outcome wasn't as fun or surprising as I thought it was going to be. The kill scenes though were very brutal, which for some reason I wasn't expecting as much, I guess because the one doing them is this super-powered 12 year old. But this was an awesome concept on a very familiar story that everyone has grown up with or heard, which is basically Superman. There are comics from DC and of Superman like Red Son Superman; where it's a "what if" Superman had landed in Russia instead of United States, and there is a Justice League animated film where instead of Superman, Kal-El, the baby that escapes Krypton is Generel Zod's child and instead of landing in Kansas he lands in New Mexico and is raised by Mexican migrant farmers. But I don't think there has been a story to explore this type of different way Superman could have grown up and it was shockingly entertaining to say the least. The mid-credits scene was really cool to see as well and know that the cinematic universe for Brightburn could expand if it does well financially. I'm thinking that it won't with stiff competition such as Aladdin and John Wick 3 but who knows. I give this film a 6/10.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Last Duel (2021) in Movies
Oct 30, 2021
Doesn't Really Work
With films such as GLADIATOR, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, ROBIN HOOD, EXODUS: GODS AND MONSTERS and the current THE LAST DUEL, Director Ridley Scott is single-handedly trying to keep alive the “Sword and Sandals” genre that was so much en vogue in the Golden Age of Hollywood.
However, he’ll have to do better than THE LAST DUEL to keep the genre going.
Starring Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Adam Driver and Jodi Comer, THE LAST DUEL tells the tale of the…well…Last Duel in France in the 1300’s. The story tells the tale of 2 noblemen, their ups & downs and the accusation of the wife of one of them that the other raped her. The only way to solve the dispute is a duel to the death.
Following the format of such films as RASHOMON (1950) and, more recently, WRATH OF MAN (2021), THE LAST DUEL is told in 4 parts - telling the same story from different perspectives. But, unlike RASHOMON and (surprisingly) WRATH OF MAN which peeled the onion back during each different telling, adding a deeper and richer layer to the story each time, THE LAST DUEL pretty much tells the same story over and over, not really telling it differently and not really adding any layers to the story. You pretty much know before THE LAST DUEL who is innocent, who is guilty and how the duel is going to play out.
So, Director Scott will need to rely on the performances and the look and feel of the film to get the audience hooked and intrigued during this 2 hour and 32 minute epic, but the script (by Nicole Holofcener, Affleck & Damon just isn’t up to the task.
The acting is…fine. Driver fares the best out of the 4 leads - probably because he is the actor most suited for this type of film than the others. Comer’s part is underwritten and she has surprisingly little to do - which brings us to Affleck and Damon. Affleck has the showier role and provides a spark of interest in his limited time on the screen while Damon is dour and serious and trudges through the film - as does the audience.
Director Scott (ALIEN) brings professionalism to the proceedings and accurately depicts the look and feel of the time and stages the duel (and battle scenes) with a trained eye, but the characters/performances did not leave me with anyone to truly root for (or care about) and by the time we got to THE LAST DUEL, I just wanted it to be over.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
However, he’ll have to do better than THE LAST DUEL to keep the genre going.
Starring Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Adam Driver and Jodi Comer, THE LAST DUEL tells the tale of the…well…Last Duel in France in the 1300’s. The story tells the tale of 2 noblemen, their ups & downs and the accusation of the wife of one of them that the other raped her. The only way to solve the dispute is a duel to the death.
Following the format of such films as RASHOMON (1950) and, more recently, WRATH OF MAN (2021), THE LAST DUEL is told in 4 parts - telling the same story from different perspectives. But, unlike RASHOMON and (surprisingly) WRATH OF MAN which peeled the onion back during each different telling, adding a deeper and richer layer to the story each time, THE LAST DUEL pretty much tells the same story over and over, not really telling it differently and not really adding any layers to the story. You pretty much know before THE LAST DUEL who is innocent, who is guilty and how the duel is going to play out.
So, Director Scott will need to rely on the performances and the look and feel of the film to get the audience hooked and intrigued during this 2 hour and 32 minute epic, but the script (by Nicole Holofcener, Affleck & Damon just isn’t up to the task.
The acting is…fine. Driver fares the best out of the 4 leads - probably because he is the actor most suited for this type of film than the others. Comer’s part is underwritten and she has surprisingly little to do - which brings us to Affleck and Damon. Affleck has the showier role and provides a spark of interest in his limited time on the screen while Damon is dour and serious and trudges through the film - as does the audience.
Director Scott (ALIEN) brings professionalism to the proceedings and accurately depicts the look and feel of the time and stages the duel (and battle scenes) with a trained eye, but the characters/performances did not leave me with anyone to truly root for (or care about) and by the time we got to THE LAST DUEL, I just wanted it to be over.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Sisu (2023) in Movies
Dec 4, 2023
Pretty Darned Entertaining
The BankofMarquis stumbled across a Finnish action flick that makes Quentin Tarantino Movies - and the John Wick films - look like Disney movies.
SISU tells the story of the waning days of WWII in Finland where a lone man has left the death and destruction of war behind to live a life of solitude. Into his world come some retreating NAZI’s who (to their detriment, they will soon find out) decide to NOT leave this lone man alone.
Chaos (and violence) ensues.
A variation of the “Man with No Name” type of action film that pits this lone person who just wants to be left alone against a group of thugs, SISU (a Finnish word that has no direct translation but roughly translates to “persevering against tremendous odds”) generates a fun action/revenge flick that is extremely violent…and extremely implausible (but that’s part of the fun).
While this is a Finnish film, all of the actors/characters speak English (except when the Nazi’s speak German), so there is no translating needed.
Jorma Tommila (a veteran Finnish actor that has no U.S. credits that I could find) is stoic, rugged and damned determined as the nameless loner (he gets named about half-way through the film) that perseveres and this is the best part of his performance. His sparkling blue eyes constantly seem active and alive even though the rest of his face is stoic and his body is bruised, bloodied, beaten and mud-covered. His internal resolve shines through in his eyes and really holds the film together well.
Aksel Hennie (who you might know as Alex Vogel one of the Astronauts that is in the ship that turns back to get Matt Damon aka THE MARTIAN) as the Head Nazi is quite good and just as determined to use his men as fodder in his vendetta against the nameless man while Jack Doolan (Horse Tommy in THE BOYS) is ruthless as his main henchman and Mimosa Willamo (the Finnish TV series DEADWIND) is strong and determined as a prisoner held by the Nazis.
Director Jalmari Helander (again, no U.S. credits that I can find) does a wonderful job of keeping the action moving and the choreography of the piece simple (you know where everyone is at all times, so when something comes out of nowhere, you have a pretty good idea as to who/what it is). He does ratchet the violence up to a Tarantino-John Wick- The Equalizer level, so if you are squeamish, this film is not for you.
But, if you are into action films, then…hoo-boy….is SISU a film for you!
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
SISU tells the story of the waning days of WWII in Finland where a lone man has left the death and destruction of war behind to live a life of solitude. Into his world come some retreating NAZI’s who (to their detriment, they will soon find out) decide to NOT leave this lone man alone.
Chaos (and violence) ensues.
A variation of the “Man with No Name” type of action film that pits this lone person who just wants to be left alone against a group of thugs, SISU (a Finnish word that has no direct translation but roughly translates to “persevering against tremendous odds”) generates a fun action/revenge flick that is extremely violent…and extremely implausible (but that’s part of the fun).
While this is a Finnish film, all of the actors/characters speak English (except when the Nazi’s speak German), so there is no translating needed.
Jorma Tommila (a veteran Finnish actor that has no U.S. credits that I could find) is stoic, rugged and damned determined as the nameless loner (he gets named about half-way through the film) that perseveres and this is the best part of his performance. His sparkling blue eyes constantly seem active and alive even though the rest of his face is stoic and his body is bruised, bloodied, beaten and mud-covered. His internal resolve shines through in his eyes and really holds the film together well.
Aksel Hennie (who you might know as Alex Vogel one of the Astronauts that is in the ship that turns back to get Matt Damon aka THE MARTIAN) as the Head Nazi is quite good and just as determined to use his men as fodder in his vendetta against the nameless man while Jack Doolan (Horse Tommy in THE BOYS) is ruthless as his main henchman and Mimosa Willamo (the Finnish TV series DEADWIND) is strong and determined as a prisoner held by the Nazis.
Director Jalmari Helander (again, no U.S. credits that I can find) does a wonderful job of keeping the action moving and the choreography of the piece simple (you know where everyone is at all times, so when something comes out of nowhere, you have a pretty good idea as to who/what it is). He does ratchet the violence up to a Tarantino-John Wick- The Equalizer level, so if you are squeamish, this film is not for you.
But, if you are into action films, then…hoo-boy….is SISU a film for you!
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Morbius (2022) in Movies
Apr 5, 2022
The latest Marvel offering is Morbius. Michael Morbius (Jared Leto) grew up in Greece under the care of Dr.Emil Nikols (Jared Harris). In this universe, Emil is Michael’s Mentor. This story takes
bits from the comic book but it clearly isn’t canon. It is an adequate anti-hero origin story for Phase 4 which gives us the backstory of Morbius’ creation.
Morbius has a rare blood disease. As a child, he made his best friend Milo/Lucien (Matt Smith), a promise to find the cure for their shared illness. Michael, in his quest for the cure, became the youngest scientist to win the Nobel Prize from his development of artificial blood.
He works with fellow scientist Martine Bancroft (Adria Arjona) who becomes his love interest.
Morbius has been working on vampire bats and the abilities within their blood. Once the formula has stabilized, he begins human trials on himself. In doing so, the serum that he has developed transforms him into a vampire that needs human blood to sustain his existence.
The film seems to have dropped the trail to lead the audience to logical conclusions. There are questions that need to be answered which would help flesh out the actions of the characters.
Why the serum, if the reason is to create a cure, why did the bat and human combination mutate instead of the blood changing?
There are points throughout the film that feel like critical explanatory lines were edited out.
Some scenes had witty banter between Michael and Milo. It would have been good to see Morbius enjoy his transformation from his weak, ill state to the Vampire.
The film was good. It definitely could have been better with more information. I wanted to understand motivation by the actors indicating motive or have red herrings thrown through the film.
The best parts for me were the moments where he stumbled upon his new abilities. He observes them like the scientist he is and takes it as data, in order to understand the changes.
The CGI was muddy, in trying to show movement as quick. What it looked like was trying to
convey speed, but in doing so, ended up having what showed up as squiggly lines instead.
I liked it, but didn’t love it mainly for what it seemed to lack, continuity. I think for an origin film, the character needs to be brought out as clean as possible in order to develop solid character traits.
If you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that lead into the Multiverse of Magic. I am definitely looking forward to that film.
3 stars out of 5
bits from the comic book but it clearly isn’t canon. It is an adequate anti-hero origin story for Phase 4 which gives us the backstory of Morbius’ creation.
Morbius has a rare blood disease. As a child, he made his best friend Milo/Lucien (Matt Smith), a promise to find the cure for their shared illness. Michael, in his quest for the cure, became the youngest scientist to win the Nobel Prize from his development of artificial blood.
He works with fellow scientist Martine Bancroft (Adria Arjona) who becomes his love interest.
Morbius has been working on vampire bats and the abilities within their blood. Once the formula has stabilized, he begins human trials on himself. In doing so, the serum that he has developed transforms him into a vampire that needs human blood to sustain his existence.
The film seems to have dropped the trail to lead the audience to logical conclusions. There are questions that need to be answered which would help flesh out the actions of the characters.
Why the serum, if the reason is to create a cure, why did the bat and human combination mutate instead of the blood changing?
There are points throughout the film that feel like critical explanatory lines were edited out.
Some scenes had witty banter between Michael and Milo. It would have been good to see Morbius enjoy his transformation from his weak, ill state to the Vampire.
The film was good. It definitely could have been better with more information. I wanted to understand motivation by the actors indicating motive or have red herrings thrown through the film.
The best parts for me were the moments where he stumbled upon his new abilities. He observes them like the scientist he is and takes it as data, in order to understand the changes.
The CGI was muddy, in trying to show movement as quick. What it looked like was trying to
convey speed, but in doing so, ended up having what showed up as squiggly lines instead.
I liked it, but didn’t love it mainly for what it seemed to lack, continuity. I think for an origin film, the character needs to be brought out as clean as possible in order to develop solid character traits.
If you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that lead into the Multiverse of Magic. I am definitely looking forward to that film.
3 stars out of 5
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Revived in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I must be the sad opposite corner of book club. NEARLY EVERYONE ELSE LOVED REVIVED AND I DIDN'T.
Oh wait. You guys totally feel my pain... right? At least, when it comes to bestselling novels and what not?
Here's my impression of this year's Gateway Readers Award nominees:
<b>2014-15 GATEWAY READERS AWARD NOMINEES</b>
Of Poseidon by Anna Banks Eh... sounds very romancy.
Croak by Gina Damico I have this book and wasn't able to read it last month. :(
Something Like Normal by Trish Doller Nope.
Don't Turn Around by Michelle Gagnon Consider me very interested.
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green Completed. Me thinks this is overrated. I'm sure Ella agrees.
Burning Blue by Paul Griffin Meh.
The Night She Disappeared by April Henry Meh.
Every Day by David Levithan Probably as overrated as TFIOS.
Revived by Cat Patrick I'm discussing this in the next few minutes. Go figure.
Starters by Lissa Price NOPE.
Trafficked by Kim Purcell My comment about this made favorite book club moment for one of my friends.
Boy21 by Matthew Quick ha. Ha. HA. Yeah... NO.
Dark Eyes by William Richter Meh.
Article 5 by Kristen Simmons Consider me a tad interested.
Breaking Beautiful by Jennifer Shaw Wolf Hello? Sophia + Contemporary = No, no, nooo, don't mess with my heart. Yes, that's a song.
I envy the middle schoolers. They have better nominees (Truman Readers Award). :p
I was overly hesitant with reading Revived. I mean, a girl dies at a really young age and became a guinea pig in this program that brings dead people back to life. Great! But honestly, do I care? No... not really. It's like Zach's Lie and Jack's Run with the name changes and "witness protection program" (not necessarily the latter, but it feels like it). It's like Falls the Shadow with the "experiment," and since the idea seems a little similar to that particular book (minus clones. That concept is used in Patrick's The Originals.), I pretty much knew I would be treading on thin ice if I read the book. Very thin ice, because this could go a few ways:
1. It would be absolutely magnifique! As a result, I'll be fangirling with Kahlan and Co.
2. I would find it predictable. But the thing is, most books ARE predictable to me. Lupe and Small Co. warned me of this.
3. WHYYYYY. *wails*
Here's the truth in paragraph format (oh, and technically, the review):
Revived wasn't a waste of my time, but I just don't like the book. I mainly don't like this entire analogy of "God" and "Jesus" and "Converts" and "Disciples" being used. I just don't. I get the analogy I mean, only someone as divine as God can actually bring back the "dead." Really, it's as bad as learning about the Puritans an absolute nightmare (even though Honors American Literature tests are the only reasons WHY my grade is climbing quickly). Plus, I try to tread very carefully with these topics.
I also found Revived pretty predictable. By page 88, there were two sentences that pretty much gave the entire plot away:
<blockquote>If God says we move, there's nothing Mason can do about it. If God says we move, we move.</blockquote>
Tell me that doesn't make you ask questions. The first comment I had? So basically if God says you die, you die? In treading very carefully on delicate topics, yes, this is true. In relation to the book, this so called God is what? A person! Tell me if you would actually be willing to die for a random stranger who you a) have no clue WHO it actually is, b) WHAT he looks like, and c) doesn't he sound like a person with an over-inflated ego?
I honestly didn't like the way the story would actually go from then on out. My second point bull's eye was the newspaper article Daisy shows Matt about what really happened to her and 20 others:
<blockquote> after a Brown Academy bus drove over Highway 13 bridge and plummeted into icy...</blockquote>
Heh. Sounds fishy. One does not simply drive over a highway bridge and "plummet" into a lake. True, true, there may have been a patch of ice, but here's the thing: snow plowers usually plow and salt highways first. So the chances of a bus just "driving" over a highway bridge sounds quite fishy unless it was done on purpose... by "God." Or, the bus driver was suicidal. But why kill a bunch of little kids?
Add to the fact that "police have not determined the cause of the collision..." Had there really been a patch of ice, it wouldn't just simply disappear right away. Or would it?
Finally, I don't get the end. Not really. I see some loopholes to the end here. What if Matt accidentally calls Daisy by her real name and not what everyone else knows her to be? (There was also one more question, but I can't post it without giving away HUGE spoilers.) I would actually love to see a second epilogue in regards to this to be honest.
But really. Had I been screeching about WHY I wasted my time, this wouldn't be called, "Review: Revived by Cat Patrick."
-------------------------
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/review-revived-by-cat-patrick.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Oh wait. You guys totally feel my pain... right? At least, when it comes to bestselling novels and what not?
Here's my impression of this year's Gateway Readers Award nominees:
<b>2014-15 GATEWAY READERS AWARD NOMINEES</b>
Of Poseidon by Anna Banks Eh... sounds very romancy.
Croak by Gina Damico I have this book and wasn't able to read it last month. :(
Something Like Normal by Trish Doller Nope.
Don't Turn Around by Michelle Gagnon Consider me very interested.
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green Completed. Me thinks this is overrated. I'm sure Ella agrees.
Burning Blue by Paul Griffin Meh.
The Night She Disappeared by April Henry Meh.
Every Day by David Levithan Probably as overrated as TFIOS.
Revived by Cat Patrick I'm discussing this in the next few minutes. Go figure.
Starters by Lissa Price NOPE.
Trafficked by Kim Purcell My comment about this made favorite book club moment for one of my friends.
Boy21 by Matthew Quick ha. Ha. HA. Yeah... NO.
Dark Eyes by William Richter Meh.
Article 5 by Kristen Simmons Consider me a tad interested.
Breaking Beautiful by Jennifer Shaw Wolf Hello? Sophia + Contemporary = No, no, nooo, don't mess with my heart. Yes, that's a song.
I envy the middle schoolers. They have better nominees (Truman Readers Award). :p
I was overly hesitant with reading Revived. I mean, a girl dies at a really young age and became a guinea pig in this program that brings dead people back to life. Great! But honestly, do I care? No... not really. It's like Zach's Lie and Jack's Run with the name changes and "witness protection program" (not necessarily the latter, but it feels like it). It's like Falls the Shadow with the "experiment," and since the idea seems a little similar to that particular book (minus clones. That concept is used in Patrick's The Originals.), I pretty much knew I would be treading on thin ice if I read the book. Very thin ice, because this could go a few ways:
1. It would be absolutely magnifique! As a result, I'll be fangirling with Kahlan and Co.
2. I would find it predictable. But the thing is, most books ARE predictable to me. Lupe and Small Co. warned me of this.
3. WHYYYYY. *wails*
Here's the truth in paragraph format (oh, and technically, the review):
Revived wasn't a waste of my time, but I just don't like the book. I mainly don't like this entire analogy of "God" and "Jesus" and "Converts" and "Disciples" being used. I just don't. I get the analogy I mean, only someone as divine as God can actually bring back the "dead." Really, it's as bad as learning about the Puritans an absolute nightmare (even though Honors American Literature tests are the only reasons WHY my grade is climbing quickly). Plus, I try to tread very carefully with these topics.
I also found Revived pretty predictable. By page 88, there were two sentences that pretty much gave the entire plot away:
<blockquote>If God says we move, there's nothing Mason can do about it. If God says we move, we move.</blockquote>
Tell me that doesn't make you ask questions. The first comment I had? So basically if God says you die, you die? In treading very carefully on delicate topics, yes, this is true. In relation to the book, this so called God is what? A person! Tell me if you would actually be willing to die for a random stranger who you a) have no clue WHO it actually is, b) WHAT he looks like, and c) doesn't he sound like a person with an over-inflated ego?
I honestly didn't like the way the story would actually go from then on out. My second point bull's eye was the newspaper article Daisy shows Matt about what really happened to her and 20 others:
<blockquote> after a Brown Academy bus drove over Highway 13 bridge and plummeted into icy...</blockquote>
Heh. Sounds fishy. One does not simply drive over a highway bridge and "plummet" into a lake. True, true, there may have been a patch of ice, but here's the thing: snow plowers usually plow and salt highways first. So the chances of a bus just "driving" over a highway bridge sounds quite fishy unless it was done on purpose... by "God." Or, the bus driver was suicidal. But why kill a bunch of little kids?
Add to the fact that "police have not determined the cause of the collision..." Had there really been a patch of ice, it wouldn't just simply disappear right away. Or would it?
Finally, I don't get the end. Not really. I see some loopholes to the end here. What if Matt accidentally calls Daisy by her real name and not what everyone else knows her to be? (There was also one more question, but I can't post it without giving away HUGE spoilers.) I would actually love to see a second epilogue in regards to this to be honest.
But really. Had I been screeching about WHY I wasted my time, this wouldn't be called, "Review: Revived by Cat Patrick."
-------------------------
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/review-revived-by-cat-patrick.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A film for all those women who dream of chivalry, but want to kick some ass.
Contains spoilers, click to show
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains."
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
MisterMovieDude (2 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Dec 29, 2017 (Updated Dec 29, 2017)
Hong Chou (3 more)
The concept
The SFX
Has heart
Every actor except Hong Chou (2 more)
Run time
Pacing issues
Big Concept, comes up short
Contains spoilers, click to show
Going into Downsizing I was excited. I had seen all of Alexander Payne’s previous work, but couldn’t necessarily call myself a fan, but I had respect for him as a filmmaker. I had a feeling that this was going to feel more like stranger than fiction, or everything must go than the trailers and tv spots were making it seem. Unfortunately, I was right.
First off, the movie is obnoxiously long. I saw this and Jumanji as a double feature and while Jumanji was 15 minutes shorter, Downsizing felt like it lasted for about 5 hours too long. The pacing was way off as well. It felt like the movie was going pretty well, and then it just slowed to a crawl at times. I get why, because the writer and director were trying to set up story and tell an awards caliber story, but that was really unnecessary. We have a movie about shrinking people down to 5 inches and placing them into a whole new community. That is a great concept, and a concept that would have made a great comedy. It didn’t make a great dramedy.
Second, the acting was bad, well for everyone except Hong Chou. I don’t know who she is but I fell in love with her in this movie. They say that beauty is In the eye of the beholder, and man, she starts out rough, but by the end she ends up this sweet, beautiful soul. It was truly a “shes all that” type of situation, but internally, if that makes any sense. The other actors just played themselves. Damon played himself, Christoph played the same character as he did in the Green Hornet(I know, we all wish we can forget he was in that too). Jason Sudeikis and NPH were in it for literally two seconds a piece, which was unfortunate, and once Wiig leaves the movie, it slows to a crawl.
I didn’t hate the movie. It had its moments, but I feel like the could have told the same movie and leave out the downsizing concept, and have two pretty decent movies with them being separate. What this is, is matt Damon finding himself after his wife backed out. Thats it. How he copes with his irreversible decision, and his story in “Liesure Land”, the community he lives in after being down sized.
Jokes don’t land, it’s too long and its poorly acted, but Hong, she is something special. I’ve never left a movie I hated before and still wanted to see a sequel because I wanted to see more of her characters story, so for that reason I recommend this movie.
There won’t be a sequel, but it’s already basically a prequel to the borrowers. You’ll see why, if you see it.
First off, the movie is obnoxiously long. I saw this and Jumanji as a double feature and while Jumanji was 15 minutes shorter, Downsizing felt like it lasted for about 5 hours too long. The pacing was way off as well. It felt like the movie was going pretty well, and then it just slowed to a crawl at times. I get why, because the writer and director were trying to set up story and tell an awards caliber story, but that was really unnecessary. We have a movie about shrinking people down to 5 inches and placing them into a whole new community. That is a great concept, and a concept that would have made a great comedy. It didn’t make a great dramedy.
Second, the acting was bad, well for everyone except Hong Chou. I don’t know who she is but I fell in love with her in this movie. They say that beauty is In the eye of the beholder, and man, she starts out rough, but by the end she ends up this sweet, beautiful soul. It was truly a “shes all that” type of situation, but internally, if that makes any sense. The other actors just played themselves. Damon played himself, Christoph played the same character as he did in the Green Hornet(I know, we all wish we can forget he was in that too). Jason Sudeikis and NPH were in it for literally two seconds a piece, which was unfortunate, and once Wiig leaves the movie, it slows to a crawl.
I didn’t hate the movie. It had its moments, but I feel like the could have told the same movie and leave out the downsizing concept, and have two pretty decent movies with them being separate. What this is, is matt Damon finding himself after his wife backed out. Thats it. How he copes with his irreversible decision, and his story in “Liesure Land”, the community he lives in after being down sized.
Jokes don’t land, it’s too long and its poorly acted, but Hong, she is something special. I’ve never left a movie I hated before and still wanted to see a sequel because I wanted to see more of her characters story, so for that reason I recommend this movie.
There won’t be a sequel, but it’s already basically a prequel to the borrowers. You’ll see why, if you see it.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Marvel's Daredevil - Season 2 in TV
Jul 21, 2017
Brilliant writing (1 more)
Fantastic performances
Down and Dirty Crimefighting
These shows are fantastic. The Netflix/Marvel TV universe that has been built off of the back of these shows is awesome. If you are a fan of the Marvel Max comic books, then these shows have been made for you. Marvel reintroduces Daredevil (and Punisher in Daredevil Season 2,) in epic fashion. This is a world where the events of the Avengers movies have taken place, but these are gritty, street level stories that tell tales of a more personal, visceral kind of battle. If you like your Marvel superheroes, but find the Avengers too tame, then wade right in. These heroes are foul mouthed, real people who happen to have some amazing abilities. Charlie Cox is a fantastic Matt Murdock and Krysten Ritter is a brilliant Jessica Jones, the supporting characters are also well implemented, such as Elektra, Stick, Foggy Nelson, Karen Paige, Night Nurse, Nuke, Luke Cage and Trish. The villains in each show are also some of the best the Marvel have had so far, Vincent D’Onofrio plays a tragic, but still scheming and suitably evil version of Kingpin, which gives the character a depth that hasn’t yet been explored. I really hope that they use the character in the solo Spiderman movie. David Tennant plays Killgrave or The Purple Man in Jessica Jones and he also kills it, you can tell he really had fun with the role too, which makes him even more entertaining whenever he is onscreen. Season 2 of Daredevil just recently finished up and during it we were introduced to the new Punisher, played by Jon Bernthal, who again gives us the chance to explore the character and his psyche to a level that we haven’t seen before. He is still the hardcore badass that you would expect, but his mentality in this universe goes deeper than that and that is something that is very cool to see. Overall I have loved every episode of these shows to date and as long as they carry on the tone and the overall production standard that they have set themselves so far, I can’t wait to see what else this universe has to offer. There is also exciting rumours stating that they could appear in the Avengers Infinity War films. I can’t wait to see all of this and I really feel that all of these characters show great potential. Keep doing what you are doing Marvel, because it is truly awesome. Doing these character’s origin stories in an R rated TV show setting was a great idea and the writing and performances on Netflix stand up to any show on HBO or AMC. If you haven’t seen the entirety of these shows yet, stop what you are doing and go marathon them right now, you will not regret it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
As average as you can get
The lacklustre box-office performance of Jack Reacher in 2012 seemed to scupper plans for the film to become the first in a new Tom Cruise-led action franchise to rival the likes of Mission Impossible and its mixed critical response only added to its woes.
Fast forward four years and we’ve got the sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is Jack Reacher: Never Go Back the improvement that was so sorely needed and could it act as a catalyst to turn this popular novel series into a proper film franchise?
Investigator Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) springs into action after the arrest of Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), an Army major accused of treason. Suspecting foul play, Jack embarks on a mission to prove that the head of his old unit is innocent. After crossing paths with the law, Reacher must now go on the lam to uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy that involves the death of U.S. soldiers.
Director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai) shoots the action realistically but even a commanding turn from Tom Cruise can’t save a bland script, so-so special effects and a plot so unoriginal, it would be easy to swap out Cruise for Liam Neeson and call it Taken 4. Or Matt Damon and label it Bourne 6? You get where I’m going with this, right?
It’s all been done so many times before and there are no twists and turns or anything remotely unusual to give the film a USP. Instead, the scriptwriters, of which there are three here, force our two central characters into a game of cat and mouse so lazy, the bad guys show up literally minutes after our heroes, with no explanation whatsoever of how they came to be in the vicinity.
Surely it wouldn’t have been difficult to add some extra exposition into the script. Cyborg baddies with GPS tracking systems implanted into their brains perhaps? I’ll save that idea for another day.
Nevertheless, the action is confidently choreographed with a Halloween parade finale being utilised rather well and Cruise plays the titular role well, despite being 54 this year. However, the supporting cast are drowned out by some horrendous dialogue and a story that doesn’t really know what to do with anyone apart from Jack Reacher himself.
And that really is about it. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is the most satisfactory film of the year by some margin. It’s not terrible by any means and it certainly isn’t fantastic, but it makes for a passable trip to the cinema, though one that you’ll probably have forgotten about by the time you get to your front door. It’s just that middle of the road.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/21/as-average-as-you-can-get-jack-reacher-never-go-back-review/
Fast forward four years and we’ve got the sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is Jack Reacher: Never Go Back the improvement that was so sorely needed and could it act as a catalyst to turn this popular novel series into a proper film franchise?
Investigator Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) springs into action after the arrest of Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), an Army major accused of treason. Suspecting foul play, Jack embarks on a mission to prove that the head of his old unit is innocent. After crossing paths with the law, Reacher must now go on the lam to uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy that involves the death of U.S. soldiers.
Director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai) shoots the action realistically but even a commanding turn from Tom Cruise can’t save a bland script, so-so special effects and a plot so unoriginal, it would be easy to swap out Cruise for Liam Neeson and call it Taken 4. Or Matt Damon and label it Bourne 6? You get where I’m going with this, right?
It’s all been done so many times before and there are no twists and turns or anything remotely unusual to give the film a USP. Instead, the scriptwriters, of which there are three here, force our two central characters into a game of cat and mouse so lazy, the bad guys show up literally minutes after our heroes, with no explanation whatsoever of how they came to be in the vicinity.
Surely it wouldn’t have been difficult to add some extra exposition into the script. Cyborg baddies with GPS tracking systems implanted into their brains perhaps? I’ll save that idea for another day.
Nevertheless, the action is confidently choreographed with a Halloween parade finale being utilised rather well and Cruise plays the titular role well, despite being 54 this year. However, the supporting cast are drowned out by some horrendous dialogue and a story that doesn’t really know what to do with anyone apart from Jack Reacher himself.
And that really is about it. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is the most satisfactory film of the year by some margin. It’s not terrible by any means and it certainly isn’t fantastic, but it makes for a passable trip to the cinema, though one that you’ll probably have forgotten about by the time you get to your front door. It’s just that middle of the road.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/21/as-average-as-you-can-get-jack-reacher-never-go-back-review/