Search
Search results
David McK (3162 KP) rated Sharpe's Rifles in TV
Jul 11, 2021
The first of the Sharpe adaptations from the early-to mid '90s, based on what was then the earlies set novel in Bernard Cornwell's long-running series set during the Napoleonic Wars.
I say what-was-then, because - since the culmination of the various TV movies, and even right up to date (the most recent to be released in a few months time, in late 2021), Cornwell has released plenty more such novels, quite a few of which are set even before the start of the Napoleonic Wars, never mind those set 'in-between' the core set of novels; said set of which provided the basis for the TV adaptations.
And that is what these are: an adaptation, rather than a straight re-telling. Sharpe, for instance, is supposed to be a dark haired Londoner rather than fair-haired Cockney (although Sean Bean's portrayal would win over Cornwell, who would later 'retrofit' his character to be closer to Sean Bean). That is probably for the better: literature and film, after all, are two distinct mediums: what works in one may not work in another.
To this day, though, I would still love to see a proper big-screen adaptation, with the budget to match, of one of these stories ...
I say what-was-then, because - since the culmination of the various TV movies, and even right up to date (the most recent to be released in a few months time, in late 2021), Cornwell has released plenty more such novels, quite a few of which are set even before the start of the Napoleonic Wars, never mind those set 'in-between' the core set of novels; said set of which provided the basis for the TV adaptations.
And that is what these are: an adaptation, rather than a straight re-telling. Sharpe, for instance, is supposed to be a dark haired Londoner rather than fair-haired Cockney (although Sean Bean's portrayal would win over Cornwell, who would later 'retrofit' his character to be closer to Sean Bean). That is probably for the better: literature and film, after all, are two distinct mediums: what works in one may not work in another.
To this day, though, I would still love to see a proper big-screen adaptation, with the budget to match, of one of these stories ...
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Titan A.E. (2000) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
Design-wise nothing short of extraordinary, the blend of astounding nu-age CGI and trademark Bluth animation should by no means work but it ends up looking like heaven. Definitely also helps that this has exactly 0% fat to it and rides on one fun, kinetic wave from start to finish that's full of rapturous action sequences and endlessly creative visuals. That being said, outside of a couple nice turns the story is total copy-and-paste sci-fi template - but I digress, I guess it's still serviceable for this type of thing but this is just *begging* to have some depth injected into its potentially thought-provoking story. What kills this from greatness for me is how chained it is to the era it was made in; granted it still could have turned out much worse but the fakey-sounding, faux-edgy soundtrack sucks so much shit (sans a couple okay song choices [thx Powerman 5000]) that it single-handedly knocks the whole rating down a half star, and the totally repellent "tude" that was required in all of these mid-late 90s/early 2000s kids' films makes me want to rip my hair out. I suppose you can write this in with 𝘍𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘍𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘴𝘺: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘞𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 for flawed early-aughts orgasmically animated sci-fi bombs that I'm still a total softie for. Gets pretty gnarly sometimes, too.
David McK (3162 KP) rated The Mummy Returns (2001) in Movies
Sep 6, 2021 (Updated Sep 3, 2023)
Brendan Fraser as Rick O'Connoll (1 more)
Rachel Weisz as Evie
There was a time in the mid to late 90s/early 00s where Brendan Fraser was a Bona Fide movie star, back before he took a break from acting.
A large part of that appeal was due to his (very) Indiana Jones-alike Rick O'Connell, a role he first portrayed in 1999s The Mummy and reprised in this (which is the middle of the Mummy films).
Unlike the sequel to this, this one also sees the return of Rachel Weisz as his now-wife Evie O'Connell (a role recast in the third film) alongside returning players from the first movie: Arnold Vosloo's Imhotep himself, John Hannah as Evie's no-good brother, Oded Fehr as the Medjai Ardeth Bay - here on the O'Connell's side throughout - and Patricia Velasquez as the reincarnated Anck Su Namun.
As such, there are strong links to the original move here, with this particular entry also seeing Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson's breakthrough to acting, as the titular Scorpion King (although some of the later effects haven't aged all that well).
Mostly enjoyable, although (and, IMO, unfortunately), they went down the 'annoying child actor' route, with the whole plot about their child getting kidnapped that kicks the journey into motion ...
A large part of that appeal was due to his (very) Indiana Jones-alike Rick O'Connell, a role he first portrayed in 1999s The Mummy and reprised in this (which is the middle of the Mummy films).
Unlike the sequel to this, this one also sees the return of Rachel Weisz as his now-wife Evie O'Connell (a role recast in the third film) alongside returning players from the first movie: Arnold Vosloo's Imhotep himself, John Hannah as Evie's no-good brother, Oded Fehr as the Medjai Ardeth Bay - here on the O'Connell's side throughout - and Patricia Velasquez as the reincarnated Anck Su Namun.
As such, there are strong links to the original move here, with this particular entry also seeing Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson's breakthrough to acting, as the titular Scorpion King (although some of the later effects haven't aged all that well).
Mostly enjoyable, although (and, IMO, unfortunately), they went down the 'annoying child actor' route, with the whole plot about their child getting kidnapped that kicks the journey into motion ...
“There is evil in all of us, and it is the mark of a man how he defies the evil within.”
The third of David Gemmell's Drenai books, this is also chronologically the first, set (as it is) centuries before the events of Legend.
I think I first read this in the mid-to-late 90s, not that long after discovering Gemmell as an author.
As an early work by Gemmell, this also has several of what-would-become-known-as his trademark: the main character of Waylander himself, for instance (who he would return to twice more in Waylander II and Hero in the Shadows) is not a clean-cut hero (perhaps more of an anti-hero), only rescuing the priest Dardalian (who would go on to have a VERY important impact on the history of the Drenai) at the very start of the novel as the renegades who are torturing that priest have also stolen Waylander's horse.
Full of powerful imagery (Waylander standing alone against the robbers in the dusk with the sun setting behind him for one, not that long after this rescue) and Gemmell's contemplation on the Source, Waylander would become - I feel - second only to Druss amongst his most popular creations.
That's not to say this is perfect: like Legend, the romance between Waylander and Danyal does seemingly come out of nowhere, although Gemmell is (was) getting better at organically growing those relationships compared to his first work.
The third of David Gemmell's Drenai books, this is also chronologically the first, set (as it is) centuries before the events of Legend.
I think I first read this in the mid-to-late 90s, not that long after discovering Gemmell as an author.
As an early work by Gemmell, this also has several of what-would-become-known-as his trademark: the main character of Waylander himself, for instance (who he would return to twice more in Waylander II and Hero in the Shadows) is not a clean-cut hero (perhaps more of an anti-hero), only rescuing the priest Dardalian (who would go on to have a VERY important impact on the history of the Drenai) at the very start of the novel as the renegades who are torturing that priest have also stolen Waylander's horse.
Full of powerful imagery (Waylander standing alone against the robbers in the dusk with the sun setting behind him for one, not that long after this rescue) and Gemmell's contemplation on the Source, Waylander would become - I feel - second only to Druss amongst his most popular creations.
That's not to say this is perfect: like Legend, the romance between Waylander and Danyal does seemingly come out of nowhere, although Gemmell is (was) getting better at organically growing those relationships compared to his first work.
Life Awheel: The 'Auto'biography of W de Forte
Richard Skelton and Wilberforce De Forte
Book
Born in Shropshire soon after the end of the First World War, venerable motoring writer W de Forte...
David McK (3162 KP) rated Star Wars: Alphabet Squadron (Alphabet Squadron #1) in Books
Dec 23, 2019
During the mid-to-late 90s (prior to even the Prequels), there was an explosion of Star Wars Expanded Universe novels.
Most of those novels concentrated on Han, Luke, Leia and co.
Most, but not all.
Alongside those, there was also two separate series of books, initially taking Wedge Antilles as a key character, concentrating instead on the fighter pilots of (initially) Rogue Squadron and (later) Wraith Squadron, taking inspiration for the X-Wing and TIE fighter computer games of the time.
And those novels themselves - now considered 'Legends' i.e. no longer canon - could very well have provided inspiration for this, the first of a spin-off trilogy (I think) from a series of graphic novels.
Whereas Rogue and Wraith squadron both had their pilots flying the same type of fighter craft, and both were very cinematic in their presentation, this novel - definitely in the first half (which, I felt, dragged somewhat) - concentrates more on its members psychology, with the so-called Alphabet squadron headed up by an ex-Imperial keen to prove her loyalty to the New Republic. And why is it called Alphabet Squadron? Because the pilots fly a mix of starfighter, from an A-Wing (i.e. that which crashes into the Star Destroyer bridge in Return of the Jedi) to a B Wing (the cross-shaped bomber glimpsed in flight), to an X-Wing (the type Luke Skywalker flies) to a U-Wing (The personnel carrier introduced in Rogue One) to a Y-Wing (the initial bombing run on the Death Star).
Most of those novels concentrated on Han, Luke, Leia and co.
Most, but not all.
Alongside those, there was also two separate series of books, initially taking Wedge Antilles as a key character, concentrating instead on the fighter pilots of (initially) Rogue Squadron and (later) Wraith Squadron, taking inspiration for the X-Wing and TIE fighter computer games of the time.
And those novels themselves - now considered 'Legends' i.e. no longer canon - could very well have provided inspiration for this, the first of a spin-off trilogy (I think) from a series of graphic novels.
Whereas Rogue and Wraith squadron both had their pilots flying the same type of fighter craft, and both were very cinematic in their presentation, this novel - definitely in the first half (which, I felt, dragged somewhat) - concentrates more on its members psychology, with the so-called Alphabet squadron headed up by an ex-Imperial keen to prove her loyalty to the New Republic. And why is it called Alphabet Squadron? Because the pilots fly a mix of starfighter, from an A-Wing (i.e. that which crashes into the Star Destroyer bridge in Return of the Jedi) to a B Wing (the cross-shaped bomber glimpsed in flight), to an X-Wing (the type Luke Skywalker flies) to a U-Wing (The personnel carrier introduced in Rogue One) to a Y-Wing (the initial bombing run on the Death Star).
First in the World Somewhere
Book
Penny Pepper has led an extraordinary life. She is a writer. Poet. Punk. Pioneer. Activist. And she...
Unraveling the Secrets
Podcast
Welcome to "Unraveling the Secrets." My name is Dennis Crenshaw. My co-host is Rick "Oz" Osmon....
Jarvis Cocker recommended The Dark Side of the Wall by The Stallion in Music (curated)
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Sep 30, 2019
Most Hollywood scholars and film critics agree Vertigo is the ultimate Hitchcock masterpiece with Psycho, North By Northwest or Rear Window rounding out the top 4. Although I would give each a 10 out of 10, I would say Psycho is probably my all time favorite.
Maybe you could say Vertigo is a better technical film or it uses camera, lighting, sets and scenery better, but Psycho has all of that as well and then some. I remember reading somewhere a list of movies where mid way through the film the plot was hijacked in a completely different direction than it had been going (for movies like From Dusk Till Dawn and True Lies), but Psycho was not listed.
I was extremely surprised in that by 1960, how many filmmakers would dare kill off their only main character and the only one the audience cares about partially through and leave the audience gasping as what was to happen next? I wish I had been sitting in a darkened theatre in 1960 to see just that. Working at movie theatres for years, I have had my share of watching crowd reaction both in laughter and in fear, and I can see how movie makers enjoy doing this themselves for their own films.
Great movies keep you coming back even though you are completely familiar with every detail already, but still come back to rewatch anyways.
I have to assume Anthony Perkins did too good of a job as Norman Bates to have any casting directors use him for different roles. He reprised Norman, several times in the 80s and 90s, and also had roles in other films like The Black Hole and Murder on the Orient Express, but no one really remembers him for anything other than Psycho. He was just that great.
I absolutely love the Bernard Herrmann score, especially over the haunting opening credit sequence. One of the best of all time. Have to mention Janet Leigh also won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. She was memorable and marvelous as well.
And Hitch never won Best Director.
Maybe you could say Vertigo is a better technical film or it uses camera, lighting, sets and scenery better, but Psycho has all of that as well and then some. I remember reading somewhere a list of movies where mid way through the film the plot was hijacked in a completely different direction than it had been going (for movies like From Dusk Till Dawn and True Lies), but Psycho was not listed.
I was extremely surprised in that by 1960, how many filmmakers would dare kill off their only main character and the only one the audience cares about partially through and leave the audience gasping as what was to happen next? I wish I had been sitting in a darkened theatre in 1960 to see just that. Working at movie theatres for years, I have had my share of watching crowd reaction both in laughter and in fear, and I can see how movie makers enjoy doing this themselves for their own films.
Great movies keep you coming back even though you are completely familiar with every detail already, but still come back to rewatch anyways.
I have to assume Anthony Perkins did too good of a job as Norman Bates to have any casting directors use him for different roles. He reprised Norman, several times in the 80s and 90s, and also had roles in other films like The Black Hole and Murder on the Orient Express, but no one really remembers him for anything other than Psycho. He was just that great.
I absolutely love the Bernard Herrmann score, especially over the haunting opening credit sequence. One of the best of all time. Have to mention Janet Leigh also won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. She was memorable and marvelous as well.
And Hitch never won Best Director.