Search
Green Products: Perspectives on Innovation and Adoption
Joao Neiva de Figueiredo and Mauro F. Guillen
Book
Sharing successful examples of sustainable products from around the world, Green Products:...
New Earth Politics: Essays from the Anthropocene
Simon Nicholson and Sikina Jinnah
Book
Humanity's collective impact on the Earth is vast. The rate and scale of human-driven environmental...
The Clasp
Book
Reunited for the extravagant wedding of a college friend: Kezia, the second-in-command to an...
Faraday, Maxwell, and the Electromagnetic Field: How Two Men Revolutionized Physics
Book
Two of the boldest and most creative scientists of all time were Michael Faraday (1791-1867) and...
Belladonna (Ephemera, #2)
8.0
Rate It
Book
In Sebastian, national bestselling and award-winning author Anne Bishop introduced a stunning new...
JT (287 KP) rated Green Lantern (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
You feel that had The Green Lantern arrived on the scene in 2011 not competing with a host of other super hero films, such as Thor, X-Men: First Class and Captain America, it might have had a better welcome.
For me the super hero genre really is bordering a mass overkill, what with this years upcoming Avengers getting so much press its hard to turn a corner without seing one of Iron Man, Hulk or Thor adoring a billboard or poster somewhere.
So it’s a shame then that Hollywood’s Mr. Nice guy, Ryan Reynolds, was given a role so bland and pointless it was almost insulting.
Director Martin Campbell’s previous outings Casino Royale and Edge if Darkness were deep gritty affairs and he really should have carried that over into this, there was so much flamboyant colour you wondered if Joel Schumacher had some how been a part of it.
That isn’t to say that during some stages the film was not enjoyable. Test pilot Hal Jordan is given the power bestowed on him by a mysterious ring with a back story shoe horned into an opening five minute monologue, if you’re not paying attention its going to be a little confusing.
The action and special effects are very good, with the Green Lantern able to concoct a wide range of objects from his mind ranging from missile launchers, swords and even a necklace, all transferred through the power and energy of the ring.
The less so, well Reynolds is surrounded by characters that only really dip their toe into the water of the film. With thousands of Green Lanterns we only really here from two, Tomar-Re and Kilowog voiced by Geoffrey Rush and Michael Clarke Duncan respectively.
Mark Strong as Sinestro on first glance has the look of someone bound to step over to the evil side, and maybe that is to come if a sequel is due at some point.
Peter Sarsgaard’s large headed villain only serves as an entrée before Hal has to tackle the large bellowing cloud that is Parallax, an entity that thrives on sucking out the fear of its victims.
The film has its moments, but it never really has the energy that so many other super hero films have. Perhaps that fact that the back story of Hal is not nearly as exciting as say Spider-man, Batman or any of the Avengers for that matter.
For me the super hero genre really is bordering a mass overkill, what with this years upcoming Avengers getting so much press its hard to turn a corner without seing one of Iron Man, Hulk or Thor adoring a billboard or poster somewhere.
So it’s a shame then that Hollywood’s Mr. Nice guy, Ryan Reynolds, was given a role so bland and pointless it was almost insulting.
Director Martin Campbell’s previous outings Casino Royale and Edge if Darkness were deep gritty affairs and he really should have carried that over into this, there was so much flamboyant colour you wondered if Joel Schumacher had some how been a part of it.
That isn’t to say that during some stages the film was not enjoyable. Test pilot Hal Jordan is given the power bestowed on him by a mysterious ring with a back story shoe horned into an opening five minute monologue, if you’re not paying attention its going to be a little confusing.
The action and special effects are very good, with the Green Lantern able to concoct a wide range of objects from his mind ranging from missile launchers, swords and even a necklace, all transferred through the power and energy of the ring.
The less so, well Reynolds is surrounded by characters that only really dip their toe into the water of the film. With thousands of Green Lanterns we only really here from two, Tomar-Re and Kilowog voiced by Geoffrey Rush and Michael Clarke Duncan respectively.
Mark Strong as Sinestro on first glance has the look of someone bound to step over to the evil side, and maybe that is to come if a sequel is due at some point.
Peter Sarsgaard’s large headed villain only serves as an entrée before Hal has to tackle the large bellowing cloud that is Parallax, an entity that thrives on sucking out the fear of its victims.
The film has its moments, but it never really has the energy that so many other super hero films have. Perhaps that fact that the back story of Hal is not nearly as exciting as say Spider-man, Batman or any of the Avengers for that matter.
DaveySmithy (107 KP) rated The Dead Zone (1983) in Movies
Dec 3, 2024
A Chilling and Thoughtful Thriller
David Cronenberg’s The Dead Zone (1983) is a film that quietly lingers with you long after the credits roll. Adapted from Stephen King’s novel, it’s a rare blend of psychological horror, heartfelt drama, and supernatural thriller that doesn’t rely on cheap scares to grip its audience. Instead, it uses its haunting premise, a strong central performance by Christopher Walken, and Cronenberg’s understated direction to craft a deeply unsettling exploration of fate, morality, and the burden of knowing the future.
The story follows Johnny Smith (Walken), an ordinary schoolteacher whose life is upended when a car accident leaves him in a coma for five years. When he awakens, he discovers he has gained the ability to see people’s pasts and futures through physical contact—a gift that feels more like a curse. What begins as an attempt to understand and use this newfound power for good spirals into a dark moral dilemma when Johnny foresees a catastrophic future involving a rising politician, Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen).
Christopher Walken is the emotional core of the film, delivering one of his most human and vulnerable performances. He masterfully conveys Johnny’s pain, loneliness, and reluctant heroism, making his character deeply sympathetic. Walken’s portrayal grounds the supernatural elements of the story, ensuring they never feel far-fetched. Martin Sheen is equally compelling as the menacing and unhinged Stillson, a character whose ambition and ruthlessness are frighteningly plausible.
Cronenberg, known for his visceral body horror, takes a restrained approach here, focusing on mood and atmosphere over gore. This subtlety works to the film’s advantage, allowing the tension to simmer until its gripping climax. The muted color palette and moody score by Michael Kamen add to the sense of dread, perfectly capturing the eerie small-town setting.
However, The Dead Zone isn’t without its flaws. The pacing occasionally drags, and some of the supporting characters feel underdeveloped. Additionally, the episodic structure—though true to the novel—can make the narrative feel uneven.
Despite these minor issues, The Dead Zone is an intelligent and emotionally resonant thriller that explores heavy themes with nuance. It may not be as flashy as other Stephen King adaptations, but its quiet power and moral complexity make it a standout. A solid 8/10.
The story follows Johnny Smith (Walken), an ordinary schoolteacher whose life is upended when a car accident leaves him in a coma for five years. When he awakens, he discovers he has gained the ability to see people’s pasts and futures through physical contact—a gift that feels more like a curse. What begins as an attempt to understand and use this newfound power for good spirals into a dark moral dilemma when Johnny foresees a catastrophic future involving a rising politician, Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen).
Christopher Walken is the emotional core of the film, delivering one of his most human and vulnerable performances. He masterfully conveys Johnny’s pain, loneliness, and reluctant heroism, making his character deeply sympathetic. Walken’s portrayal grounds the supernatural elements of the story, ensuring they never feel far-fetched. Martin Sheen is equally compelling as the menacing and unhinged Stillson, a character whose ambition and ruthlessness are frighteningly plausible.
Cronenberg, known for his visceral body horror, takes a restrained approach here, focusing on mood and atmosphere over gore. This subtlety works to the film’s advantage, allowing the tension to simmer until its gripping climax. The muted color palette and moody score by Michael Kamen add to the sense of dread, perfectly capturing the eerie small-town setting.
However, The Dead Zone isn’t without its flaws. The pacing occasionally drags, and some of the supporting characters feel underdeveloped. Additionally, the episodic structure—though true to the novel—can make the narrative feel uneven.
Despite these minor issues, The Dead Zone is an intelligent and emotionally resonant thriller that explores heavy themes with nuance. It may not be as flashy as other Stephen King adaptations, but its quiet power and moral complexity make it a standout. A solid 8/10.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Triple 9 (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
A crew of bank robbers is strong-armed by the Russian mob to pull off a near impossible heist due the response time of the police. In order to create a larger window, the dirty cops of this crew suggest creating a 999 (police code for “officer down.”) on the other side of town. That is the basic plot of Triple 9. Yet, the tagline for this film is, “The Code on the street is never black and white.” Seems like a different movie which is part of the letdown of Triple 9. It doesn’t know what it wants to be. Is it a heist movie like Heat or The Town? Or is it trying to be a movie about the cops and the rules of the streets like Training Day?
In the beginning, the film sets its self-up to be a smart and stylistic heist film. However shortly after it begins to feel disjointed as it attempts to develop everyone in its ensemble cast to the point where it hurts the story and some excellent performances become forgettable. It’s a shame because somewhere in this film is potentially two excellent separate films. One film about a crew having to complete a heist for the mob to save their lives and loved ones, and another about dirty cops, their partners and the moral ambiguity of the code on the streets. In Triple 9, these two premises never really get developed on one side or the other and thus everything is just left there.
On the heist side, Chiwetel Ejiofor plays ex-mercenary Michael Atwood. Michael is the careful and calculating leader of the crew, but is tied to the Russian mafia through the mother of his son. Michael is constantly being coerced by the Russian Mob Boss, played by Kate Winslet. The two give stellar performances, most notably Winslet who is cold and ruthless in wielding her power, speaking her mind and not caring how the job gets done as long as it gets done.
On the cop side, Anthony Mackie plays dirty police detective Marcus Belmont who becomes partnered with the ex-marine turned rookie detective Chris Allen (Casey Affleck). Belmont feels that the rookie doesn’t respect the streets and his “Do-gooder” “make a difference” attitude is going to get him killed. When Belmont’s heist crewmate Jorge Rodriguez (Clifton Collins Jr.) learns Chris is also the nephew of the Sergeant Detective (Woody Harrelson) investigating the heist crew, Chris becomes the clear candidate to be set up for the Triple 9. (Convenient huh)
Ultimately, as the story plays out it feels we are always arriving at the end of the meeting to plan the coming events. From the planning of the heist, to the set up murder, and to the exit plan, we are just carried through the motions without much motivation of how or why things have to play out the way they do. As a result, I didn’t really care for any of the characters good or bad, unlike other films of this nature. Even Ejiofor’s character Michael, who has his child involved, doesn’t get the opportunity to really show why the rest of the crew respects him and follows him, or why he needs to stay alive for his son, who basically seems better off being taken care of by the Russian mob.
In the end Triple 9 is not a bad movie, it just isn’t really a great one either. It has strong performances by the entire cast and has the makings of something great, but fails to deliver on that opportunity with a disjointed story trying to focus on too many characters. This makes it ultimately forgettable compared to other heist films of similar nature.
In the beginning, the film sets its self-up to be a smart and stylistic heist film. However shortly after it begins to feel disjointed as it attempts to develop everyone in its ensemble cast to the point where it hurts the story and some excellent performances become forgettable. It’s a shame because somewhere in this film is potentially two excellent separate films. One film about a crew having to complete a heist for the mob to save their lives and loved ones, and another about dirty cops, their partners and the moral ambiguity of the code on the streets. In Triple 9, these two premises never really get developed on one side or the other and thus everything is just left there.
On the heist side, Chiwetel Ejiofor plays ex-mercenary Michael Atwood. Michael is the careful and calculating leader of the crew, but is tied to the Russian mafia through the mother of his son. Michael is constantly being coerced by the Russian Mob Boss, played by Kate Winslet. The two give stellar performances, most notably Winslet who is cold and ruthless in wielding her power, speaking her mind and not caring how the job gets done as long as it gets done.
On the cop side, Anthony Mackie plays dirty police detective Marcus Belmont who becomes partnered with the ex-marine turned rookie detective Chris Allen (Casey Affleck). Belmont feels that the rookie doesn’t respect the streets and his “Do-gooder” “make a difference” attitude is going to get him killed. When Belmont’s heist crewmate Jorge Rodriguez (Clifton Collins Jr.) learns Chris is also the nephew of the Sergeant Detective (Woody Harrelson) investigating the heist crew, Chris becomes the clear candidate to be set up for the Triple 9. (Convenient huh)
Ultimately, as the story plays out it feels we are always arriving at the end of the meeting to plan the coming events. From the planning of the heist, to the set up murder, and to the exit plan, we are just carried through the motions without much motivation of how or why things have to play out the way they do. As a result, I didn’t really care for any of the characters good or bad, unlike other films of this nature. Even Ejiofor’s character Michael, who has his child involved, doesn’t get the opportunity to really show why the rest of the crew respects him and follows him, or why he needs to stay alive for his son, who basically seems better off being taken care of by the Russian mob.
In the end Triple 9 is not a bad movie, it just isn’t really a great one either. It has strong performances by the entire cast and has the makings of something great, but fails to deliver on that opportunity with a disjointed story trying to focus on too many characters. This makes it ultimately forgettable compared to other heist films of similar nature.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Macbeth (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Directed by Justin Kurzel, the 2015 release of Macbeth stars Michael
Fassbender
as Macbeth and Marion Cotillard as Lady Macbeth.
There are a ton of blood and guts in this movie. Many of the action
scenes have slow-motion insets, which for me were better than the jerky
camera movement of the close-up fighting scenes, but still felt weird
inside the film.
This is the traditional Macbeth story-line, with the typical language of
the original play. The accents of most of the actors were very heavy,
making it quite difficult to follow the actual dialogue.
I was able to follow the story because I know the basic premise of
Hamlet (who doesn’t?) but if I hadn’t basically known what the story was
about, and had to rely solely on the spoken words in the film, I would
have been dreadfully lost.
Marion Cotillard plays a very good conniving, plotting Lady Macbeth, and
Michael Fassbender does a great job of portraying a manipulated, power
hungry man, being driven mad by his atrocities.
The supporting cast gave great performances as well. The three witches
were played by Lynn Kennedy, Seylan Baxter, and Seylan Mhairi Baxter.
They were sufficiently creepy and mysterious to add the right amount of
darkness to their roles, without overpowering the concept that had
Hamlet interpreted their predictions differently, the entire story may
have gone differently.
There were parts of the movie that I held my breath at, and felt myself
responding emotionally to, but it would be very hard NOT to feel some
sort of emotion at watching a family being burned at the stake at the
whim of a mad-man.
If I were a die-hard Macbeth or Shakespeare fan, I likely would have
enjoyed the film far more. On the other hand, a die-hard Shakespeare fan
probably would have been upset at some of the pieces that were trimmed
from the famous lines of the original (“something wicked this way comes”
was noticeably absent)
Overall I would give this movie 2 out of 5 stars, based on the hard time
I had understanding the dialogue. If I had been able to not have had to
concentrate so hard to understand what was being said, I would have
given it 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Fassbender
as Macbeth and Marion Cotillard as Lady Macbeth.
There are a ton of blood and guts in this movie. Many of the action
scenes have slow-motion insets, which for me were better than the jerky
camera movement of the close-up fighting scenes, but still felt weird
inside the film.
This is the traditional Macbeth story-line, with the typical language of
the original play. The accents of most of the actors were very heavy,
making it quite difficult to follow the actual dialogue.
I was able to follow the story because I know the basic premise of
Hamlet (who doesn’t?) but if I hadn’t basically known what the story was
about, and had to rely solely on the spoken words in the film, I would
have been dreadfully lost.
Marion Cotillard plays a very good conniving, plotting Lady Macbeth, and
Michael Fassbender does a great job of portraying a manipulated, power
hungry man, being driven mad by his atrocities.
The supporting cast gave great performances as well. The three witches
were played by Lynn Kennedy, Seylan Baxter, and Seylan Mhairi Baxter.
They were sufficiently creepy and mysterious to add the right amount of
darkness to their roles, without overpowering the concept that had
Hamlet interpreted their predictions differently, the entire story may
have gone differently.
There were parts of the movie that I held my breath at, and felt myself
responding emotionally to, but it would be very hard NOT to feel some
sort of emotion at watching a family being burned at the stake at the
whim of a mad-man.
If I were a die-hard Macbeth or Shakespeare fan, I likely would have
enjoyed the film far more. On the other hand, a die-hard Shakespeare fan
probably would have been upset at some of the pieces that were trimmed
from the famous lines of the original (“something wicked this way comes”
was noticeably absent)
Overall I would give this movie 2 out of 5 stars, based on the hard time
I had understanding the dialogue. If I had been able to not have had to
concentrate so hard to understand what was being said, I would have
given it 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Lose Weight with Andrew Johnson
Medical and Education
App
This App is designed to help dissolve the bad habits associated with overeating, eating too fast,...