Search
Search results
Steph Freeman (26 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Jan 4, 2018
IT was unique from the book and previous miniseries while still maintaining the story line. (2 more)
The kids were funny, and the personalities were similar to those in the book.
Bill Skarsgård played on the fluidity of Pennywise without forcing too much comparison to Tim Curry
Most of the movie was spent wondering how they were going to finish within the time frame. (1 more)
Henry Bowers and crew were much less prominent than in the book, this might be corrected during flashbacks in the second movie.
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a die hard Stephen King fan this book entered my consciousness at 14, before the mini-series which is unusual for my age group. I've devoured all 1400 pages of the novel at least 5 times in the last 20 years, and always felt the mini-series was "good for it's time".
This movie has delivered on the promise for more in a way that was amazing and over the top. Bill Skarsgård clearly did his homework on both Pennywise from the novel and Tim Curry's terrifying rendition. I loved his ability to show the infinite being's vulnerability and desire to be included, while at the same time showing it's ferocity and anger.
The special effects delivered what the promotional material promised, and sucked me right into the world of Derry without a second thought. I loved the references to the shed burning down, the refrigerator where Bowers suffocated the dog, and the phenomenal rendition of the Neibolt street house.
If the next movie is anything like the first it's worth seeing opening night. I look forward to seeing the Loser's Club as adults.
This movie has delivered on the promise for more in a way that was amazing and over the top. Bill Skarsgård clearly did his homework on both Pennywise from the novel and Tim Curry's terrifying rendition. I loved his ability to show the infinite being's vulnerability and desire to be included, while at the same time showing it's ferocity and anger.
The special effects delivered what the promotional material promised, and sucked me right into the world of Derry without a second thought. I loved the references to the shed burning down, the refrigerator where Bowers suffocated the dog, and the phenomenal rendition of the Neibolt street house.
If the next movie is anything like the first it's worth seeing opening night. I look forward to seeing the Loser's Club as adults.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Edge of Darkness (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Mel Gibson is back on the screen in the winter thriller “Edge of Darkness”. Boston cop Thomas Craven (Gibson) is excited about his daughter Emma’s (Bojana Novakovic) visit home from her first post college employment position. Yet from the very start something seems wrong. Before dinner is even served a masked assailant kills Emma in cold blood on the porch of her father’s house leaving Officer Craven determined to figure out who killed his daughter and why which requires Craven to do this with or without the help of the law.
This is not a mystery but rather the story of a cop’s determination to avenge his daughter against impossible odds which are stacked with numerous shady characters that Craven must deal with to solve the murder, including senators, businessmen, and one title-less problem solver. Moreover, the flick walks directly into the muddy waters of morality, the law, business, and politics.
Tightly packed with characters, “Edge of Darkness” leaves little room for character development, thereby loosing much of the emotional response it seeks to create. However, the standout performance by Ray Winstone, who plays the insightful but questionably aligned Jedburgh, did lighten what otherwise is a dark and densely packed tale.
Further frustrating the viewer, the film’s ending is expected and not at all as dramatic as the buildup demanded. I left wondering why Gibson would remake the original award winning BBC-miniseries into a boring film that is ripe with undeveloped characters.
This thriller lacks the inventiveness or conclusion to make it worthy of Mel Gibson’s return. There were a couple of mildly tense moments and few well executed scenes but overall “Edge of Darkness” is really more of a substandard drama than an engaging thriller. The 117 minutes spent watching the “Edge of Darkness” was slightly enjoyable, but the story really is nothing new.
This is not a mystery but rather the story of a cop’s determination to avenge his daughter against impossible odds which are stacked with numerous shady characters that Craven must deal with to solve the murder, including senators, businessmen, and one title-less problem solver. Moreover, the flick walks directly into the muddy waters of morality, the law, business, and politics.
Tightly packed with characters, “Edge of Darkness” leaves little room for character development, thereby loosing much of the emotional response it seeks to create. However, the standout performance by Ray Winstone, who plays the insightful but questionably aligned Jedburgh, did lighten what otherwise is a dark and densely packed tale.
Further frustrating the viewer, the film’s ending is expected and not at all as dramatic as the buildup demanded. I left wondering why Gibson would remake the original award winning BBC-miniseries into a boring film that is ripe with undeveloped characters.
This thriller lacks the inventiveness or conclusion to make it worthy of Mel Gibson’s return. There were a couple of mildly tense moments and few well executed scenes but overall “Edge of Darkness” is really more of a substandard drama than an engaging thriller. The 117 minutes spent watching the “Edge of Darkness” was slightly enjoyable, but the story really is nothing new.
Lenard (726 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
Hell's Kitchen 1977... the Irish mob takes care of the neighborhood, but times are tough these days. The economy created a new term: stagflation where prices rise, unemployment increases, and the economic growth slows. The supply of gas was cut off. There was a serial killer on the loose. The Irish mob had just experience a change in leadership that changed the dynamic of the neighborhood. The old leader was arrested doing a job as well as his associates. The mob could not afford to take care of the "widows." Using the education of one, the street sense of another, and the killer instinct of the third, they begin to operate their own gang in the neighborhood. A gang that will actually protect the neighborhood from street thugs. But going against the Irish mob is never a good idea no matter how weak they are, so a couple of pacts are sealed and Fate is tempted.
"The Kitchen" is based on a graphic novel series. Multiple story threads and divergent schemes are explored. The whole thing is much better suited for a miniseries or limited series than a feature film. Nowadays there is a cinematic quality to certain shows on pay channels so it wouldn't even lose the visual quality Andrea Berloff wants. This is the only problem with the film. The acting is top-notch, especially character actor Bill Camp. The writing is good. The story just needed a lot more space to grow. Ruby is an extremely complex character that would have benefited from character development inherent in a long-form series. A girl from Harlem who had the softness beaten out of her who has a long game which could have been explored in more depth especially considering the co-conspirators she acquires.
"The Kitchen" is based on a graphic novel series. Multiple story threads and divergent schemes are explored. The whole thing is much better suited for a miniseries or limited series than a feature film. Nowadays there is a cinematic quality to certain shows on pay channels so it wouldn't even lose the visual quality Andrea Berloff wants. This is the only problem with the film. The acting is top-notch, especially character actor Bill Camp. The writing is good. The story just needed a lot more space to grow. Ruby is an extremely complex character that would have benefited from character development inherent in a long-form series. A girl from Harlem who had the softness beaten out of her who has a long game which could have been explored in more depth especially considering the co-conspirators she acquires.
Erika (17788 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 1, 2021 (Updated Jun 1, 2021)
Cruella is the newest live-action adaptation of a cartoon character that Disney decided to give us. I only went to see the movie because there was nothing else out in the theater this weekend.
At an overly-long, bloated run time of 2 hours and 12 minutes, we get the entire life story of Cruella, prior to 101 Dalmatians, whose real name is Estella. Of course, it starts with the stereotypical birth scene, continuing through childhood to adulthood. She becomes orphaned, and meets her two future henchmen, played by Paul Walter Hauser and Joel Fry. They were pretty bumbling, and I found myself both amused and annoyed by them.
Estella dreams of a career in fashion, and by a series of events, ends up at the fashion house of the Baroness. There’s a connection from the Baroness to the events that caused Estella to be orphaned, and when that connection is made by Estella, she goes full on Cruella. I think Disney was attempting to show that Estella/Cruella has some sort of hereditary personality disorder, and I don’t know how I felt about that being used as a plot device. Cruella’s vendetta and revenge are sort of fun to watch, but there’s just too much. Every time you thought the movie was ending, something else happened.
Emma Stone does make Cruella interesting, which is a positive. Emma Thompson as the Baroness was so over the top, but at least Thompson seemed to enjoy playing someone that deranged.
For me, the only positives of this film were the costumes and music. The 60s/70s soundtrack was sick (in a good way), and the fashion was over the top and outrageous. The run time was so long, and Disney should have just slapped it on Disney+, for free, as a miniseries. The movie was not worth the price of a ticket, and definitely not worth that crazy premium pricing on VOD. If you’re interested, wait a couple of months and watch it for free when it joins the Disney+ library.
At an overly-long, bloated run time of 2 hours and 12 minutes, we get the entire life story of Cruella, prior to 101 Dalmatians, whose real name is Estella. Of course, it starts with the stereotypical birth scene, continuing through childhood to adulthood. She becomes orphaned, and meets her two future henchmen, played by Paul Walter Hauser and Joel Fry. They were pretty bumbling, and I found myself both amused and annoyed by them.
Estella dreams of a career in fashion, and by a series of events, ends up at the fashion house of the Baroness. There’s a connection from the Baroness to the events that caused Estella to be orphaned, and when that connection is made by Estella, she goes full on Cruella. I think Disney was attempting to show that Estella/Cruella has some sort of hereditary personality disorder, and I don’t know how I felt about that being used as a plot device. Cruella’s vendetta and revenge are sort of fun to watch, but there’s just too much. Every time you thought the movie was ending, something else happened.
Emma Stone does make Cruella interesting, which is a positive. Emma Thompson as the Baroness was so over the top, but at least Thompson seemed to enjoy playing someone that deranged.
For me, the only positives of this film were the costumes and music. The 60s/70s soundtrack was sick (in a good way), and the fashion was over the top and outrageous. The run time was so long, and Disney should have just slapped it on Disney+, for free, as a miniseries. The movie was not worth the price of a ticket, and definitely not worth that crazy premium pricing on VOD. If you’re interested, wait a couple of months and watch it for free when it joins the Disney+ library.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Blackbeard in TV
May 28, 2017
Good cast (1 more)
Decent for a TV miniseries/movie
Not entirely accurate (2 more)
The characters and boats are far too clean
TV effects (or lack of) might spoil some scenes
Somewhat entertaining
So I was on the search for some more Pirate movies at my local DVD stores, in hopes of finding something with the effects of Pirates of the Caribbean, but a more serious plot like that of the Black Sails series. Something that feels more like how the golden age of piracy would seem, not quite as quirky and humorous as the Disney films, although I cannot fault them for they are some of my favourite movies. It was on my search, that I came across this, and my initial thoughts were that whilst it looked cheap, it could be an entertaining film. As it turns out, I discovered this was a TV miniseries, merged into roughly a 162 minute film.
It has some charm, I can say that much for it. The cast are decent with very few famous names, and the acting itself isn't dreadful. However, there seems to be some lacking in the actual filming and editing of the episodes/feature. It has a decent plot which involves a hunt for treasure, a hunt for justice and slight revenge, which makes the viewing, feel like a pirate experience should be, but there still seems to lack the proper visuals to complete the experience.
If you take a look at Pirates of the Caribbean, one aspect that makes those films so darn good is the visuals. The pirates are dirty, rotting teeth, golden teeth, dirty fingernails, and their ships are battle worn with scars in the woodwork and again, the dirt from barnicles, and land. The ships in this feature on the other hand, are the cleanest ships you'll see in a pirate themed show or movie, and they look as if they were freshly made straight from the ship builder themselves. There doesn't appear to be any barnicles clung onto them, nor are there any battle scars, even after you witness a battle in the beginning of the film. The pirates themselves are also clean, all with white teeth as though they visited a dentist and brushed their teeth with colgate or the next best brand. There's not a single sign of scurvy which was popular among pirates during the golden age, and I didn't really spot any scars from battles apart from the obvious ones where you witness a member of Blackbeards crew have part of his leg removed due to injury (you don't see the gruesome imagery, as it's 12 rated series). Other than that though, there no facial scars, no sign to tell us that Blackbeard has fought enough battles and lived through them to become reknowned as a devil instead of a man. We only see what appears to be a couple of weeks of him as a Captain, and yet he claims to already be known as the scurge of the seas, which is highly unlikely given that we only see him battle one ship and spend the rest of his time hunting treasure, never running across another opposing ship until the finale, which sees Blackbeard battle against a crew of Royal Navy soldiers led by Lieutenant Robert Maynard.
Whilst the plot had me intrigued for the most part, I can't say that this is a film I would 'Highly' recommend, but if you fancy watching a pirate movie, this could be somewhat sufficient until you find something else, despite some of the deaths in battle seeming very staged, as sometimes I would notice a sword being shoved theatrically into someones armpit, only for the victim of the blade to fall lifeless to the floor, some holding onto the blade as though left in their body, others being retrieved from the 'corpse' with no visible blood on the blade.
With very historical accuracy's, mostly about the legend of Captain Kidd, hiding treasure, and the title's that Blackbeard earned, before his life was taken by that of Robert Maynard, the location of his death, and some other less important factors, were dramatized for the series alone and should not be taken as historically accurate.
It's a decent film, but it's just not quite what I was hoping for, and certainly not as great as it could have been.
It has some charm, I can say that much for it. The cast are decent with very few famous names, and the acting itself isn't dreadful. However, there seems to be some lacking in the actual filming and editing of the episodes/feature. It has a decent plot which involves a hunt for treasure, a hunt for justice and slight revenge, which makes the viewing, feel like a pirate experience should be, but there still seems to lack the proper visuals to complete the experience.
If you take a look at Pirates of the Caribbean, one aspect that makes those films so darn good is the visuals. The pirates are dirty, rotting teeth, golden teeth, dirty fingernails, and their ships are battle worn with scars in the woodwork and again, the dirt from barnicles, and land. The ships in this feature on the other hand, are the cleanest ships you'll see in a pirate themed show or movie, and they look as if they were freshly made straight from the ship builder themselves. There doesn't appear to be any barnicles clung onto them, nor are there any battle scars, even after you witness a battle in the beginning of the film. The pirates themselves are also clean, all with white teeth as though they visited a dentist and brushed their teeth with colgate or the next best brand. There's not a single sign of scurvy which was popular among pirates during the golden age, and I didn't really spot any scars from battles apart from the obvious ones where you witness a member of Blackbeards crew have part of his leg removed due to injury (you don't see the gruesome imagery, as it's 12 rated series). Other than that though, there no facial scars, no sign to tell us that Blackbeard has fought enough battles and lived through them to become reknowned as a devil instead of a man. We only see what appears to be a couple of weeks of him as a Captain, and yet he claims to already be known as the scurge of the seas, which is highly unlikely given that we only see him battle one ship and spend the rest of his time hunting treasure, never running across another opposing ship until the finale, which sees Blackbeard battle against a crew of Royal Navy soldiers led by Lieutenant Robert Maynard.
Whilst the plot had me intrigued for the most part, I can't say that this is a film I would 'Highly' recommend, but if you fancy watching a pirate movie, this could be somewhat sufficient until you find something else, despite some of the deaths in battle seeming very staged, as sometimes I would notice a sword being shoved theatrically into someones armpit, only for the victim of the blade to fall lifeless to the floor, some holding onto the blade as though left in their body, others being retrieved from the 'corpse' with no visible blood on the blade.
With very historical accuracy's, mostly about the legend of Captain Kidd, hiding treasure, and the title's that Blackbeard earned, before his life was taken by that of Robert Maynard, the location of his death, and some other less important factors, were dramatized for the series alone and should not be taken as historically accurate.
It's a decent film, but it's just not quite what I was hoping for, and certainly not as great as it could have been.
FilmIntuition (33 KP) rated All We Ever Wanted in Books
Jul 6, 2018
Timely & Compelling
Determined to get to the second book in the series that everyone I knew had assured me was "the best," over the years, I must've picked up and earnestly started my paperback copy of Emily Giffin's Something Borrowed dozens of times but just couldn't relate to the characters.
And while I feared the same would be true for Giffin's latest novel All We Ever Wanted, especially considering that the first chapter of the book – which divides the storyline into three alternating first person points-of-view – began from the perspective of the wealthy one percenter wife from Nashville's elite, Giffin quickly replaces first world problems with real world problems.
Shocked to her core upon discovering appalling decision made by her Princeton bound son, in trying to get to the bottom of what exactly happened and what on Earth he was thinking, Nina Browning is forced to take a good hard look at her life and marriage as well as her past when she found herself at the other end of a similar horrific situation.
Continuing the action from the perspective of the two main other parties involved including her son's younger classmate, Lyla and Lyla's protective single father Tom, Giffin deftly balances her richly compelling drama with timely issues of economic inequality, racism, and sexual harassment in the digital age.
Surprising her readers with a few well-earned twists, while despite the narrative roller-coaster, we're pretty sure we know precisely who's to blame, ultimately it's in Lyla and Nina's journey toward accepting and understanding the truth that made the book increasingly hard to stop reading, particularly in its second half.
An ideal property for HBO to look into adapting as part of its annual miniseries exploration of twenty-first century women in literature, All We Ever Wanted might have been my first Emily Giffin work but it's just the right one to make me want to pick up Something Borrowed again for good.
Note: I received an Advanced Reader’s Copy of this title from Bookish First in exchange for an honest opinion.
And while I feared the same would be true for Giffin's latest novel All We Ever Wanted, especially considering that the first chapter of the book – which divides the storyline into three alternating first person points-of-view – began from the perspective of the wealthy one percenter wife from Nashville's elite, Giffin quickly replaces first world problems with real world problems.
Shocked to her core upon discovering appalling decision made by her Princeton bound son, in trying to get to the bottom of what exactly happened and what on Earth he was thinking, Nina Browning is forced to take a good hard look at her life and marriage as well as her past when she found herself at the other end of a similar horrific situation.
Continuing the action from the perspective of the two main other parties involved including her son's younger classmate, Lyla and Lyla's protective single father Tom, Giffin deftly balances her richly compelling drama with timely issues of economic inequality, racism, and sexual harassment in the digital age.
Surprising her readers with a few well-earned twists, while despite the narrative roller-coaster, we're pretty sure we know precisely who's to blame, ultimately it's in Lyla and Nina's journey toward accepting and understanding the truth that made the book increasingly hard to stop reading, particularly in its second half.
An ideal property for HBO to look into adapting as part of its annual miniseries exploration of twenty-first century women in literature, All We Ever Wanted might have been my first Emily Giffin work but it's just the right one to make me want to pick up Something Borrowed again for good.
Note: I received an Advanced Reader’s Copy of this title from Bookish First in exchange for an honest opinion.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Make sure you take a pillow
Horror buffs and Stephen King fans everywhere have been waiting for this moment since 2009. It is of course, a modern adaptation of the author’s novel, IT.
Plagued with production problems from the get-go, I see a pattern emerging here, IT has been in the hands of multiple directors with numerous actors in the running to play that iconic clown. I am of course, talking about Pennywise.
Fast forward to 2017, and with Mama Andy Muschietti taking over directorial duties and Bill Skarsgård hopping into that tight-fitting suit we finally have a finished product. But what is it like?Seven young outcasts in Derry, Maine, are about to face their worst nightmare — an ancient, shape-shifting evil that emerges from the sewer every 27 years to prey on the town’s children. Banding together over the course of one horrifying summer, the friends must overcome their own personal fears to battle the murderous, bloodthirsty clown known as Pennywise.
Let’s start off by saying this is much, much better than last month’s The Dark Tower. Stephen King adaptations can go one of two ways and it was feared that IT would follow in the aforementioned film’s footsteps. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
IT is frankly, an incredible interpretation of King’s iconic novel filled with exceptional performances, stunning cinematography and an emotional heart not normally seen in the genre. It’s unlike anything you will have seen before.
Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room, Pennywise. Tim Curry played the hell out of that character in the 1990 miniseries and it would be senseless for 27-year-old Bill Skarsgård to follow too closely in his footsteps. At 6ft 3”, Skarsgård is certainly an imposing presence and his Pennywise is much more menacing than Curry’s, but to compare them too much would be unfair to each.
Elsewhere, all the members of the Losers’ Club are brilliant. I have never seen this calibre of acting from such a young group. Jaeden Lieberher as Bill in particular is astonishing. The scenes in which they all work together without the threat of Pennywise are a treat and give the film an uncharacteristically poignant style.
Moreover, the shot choices that Muschietti uses are striking. He rightly stays away from confining the horror to dimly lit corridors and alleyways and whilst this does feature more towards the finale, Derry makes a fine location bathed for the most part in gorgeous sunlight.
Whilst not being completely faithful to King’s novel, Muschietti’s film features all of the iconic scenes that you would expect. The opening sequence from the book in which little Georgie is confronted by Pennywise in the storm drain is shockingly brutal and sets up the tone for the rest of the picture.
This is a truly frightening film, speckled with just enough gore to keep it realistic and whilst it’s true there are one-too-many jump scares, the brilliant source material stops them from feeling too cheap. In the back of your mind, you’re well aware that this is very similar to the book indeed.
Overall, IT is better than anyone could have hoped. It’s scary, deeply emotional, funny and beautifully filmed with an exquisite score by Benjamin Wallfisch. If you’re a horror fan you must watch. If you’re a film fan, you must watch – just take a pillow with you, for protection purposes of course.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/09/it-review-make-sure-you-take-a-pillow/
Plagued with production problems from the get-go, I see a pattern emerging here, IT has been in the hands of multiple directors with numerous actors in the running to play that iconic clown. I am of course, talking about Pennywise.
Fast forward to 2017, and with Mama Andy Muschietti taking over directorial duties and Bill Skarsgård hopping into that tight-fitting suit we finally have a finished product. But what is it like?Seven young outcasts in Derry, Maine, are about to face their worst nightmare — an ancient, shape-shifting evil that emerges from the sewer every 27 years to prey on the town’s children. Banding together over the course of one horrifying summer, the friends must overcome their own personal fears to battle the murderous, bloodthirsty clown known as Pennywise.
Let’s start off by saying this is much, much better than last month’s The Dark Tower. Stephen King adaptations can go one of two ways and it was feared that IT would follow in the aforementioned film’s footsteps. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
IT is frankly, an incredible interpretation of King’s iconic novel filled with exceptional performances, stunning cinematography and an emotional heart not normally seen in the genre. It’s unlike anything you will have seen before.
Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room, Pennywise. Tim Curry played the hell out of that character in the 1990 miniseries and it would be senseless for 27-year-old Bill Skarsgård to follow too closely in his footsteps. At 6ft 3”, Skarsgård is certainly an imposing presence and his Pennywise is much more menacing than Curry’s, but to compare them too much would be unfair to each.
Elsewhere, all the members of the Losers’ Club are brilliant. I have never seen this calibre of acting from such a young group. Jaeden Lieberher as Bill in particular is astonishing. The scenes in which they all work together without the threat of Pennywise are a treat and give the film an uncharacteristically poignant style.
Moreover, the shot choices that Muschietti uses are striking. He rightly stays away from confining the horror to dimly lit corridors and alleyways and whilst this does feature more towards the finale, Derry makes a fine location bathed for the most part in gorgeous sunlight.
Whilst not being completely faithful to King’s novel, Muschietti’s film features all of the iconic scenes that you would expect. The opening sequence from the book in which little Georgie is confronted by Pennywise in the storm drain is shockingly brutal and sets up the tone for the rest of the picture.
This is a truly frightening film, speckled with just enough gore to keep it realistic and whilst it’s true there are one-too-many jump scares, the brilliant source material stops them from feeling too cheap. In the back of your mind, you’re well aware that this is very similar to the book indeed.
Overall, IT is better than anyone could have hoped. It’s scary, deeply emotional, funny and beautifully filmed with an exquisite score by Benjamin Wallfisch. If you’re a horror fan you must watch. If you’re a film fan, you must watch – just take a pillow with you, for protection purposes of course.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/09/it-review-make-sure-you-take-a-pillow/
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Phoenix Resurrection: The Return of Jean Grey in Books
Nov 30, 2020
So, confession time, I had bought this on a Comixology sale a couple months before the whole "Death of the X-Men", etc., etc. I was not really following the recent X-debacles, but I am a Jean Grey fan from way (like when the whole "Dark Phoenix Saga" was coming out for the first time. Yeah, I'm OLD! lol) and well, I had pretty high hopes, y'know?
Unfortunately, I could not get into it at the time. Mind you, this was all pre-"Dawn of X"; as I am starting a big "Dawn of X" re-visit from HoX/PoX up to present, only without the dumpster fire that was FALLEN ANGELS, it made sense to try this one again! And, as I read it all in one afternoon, it's needless to say, but I am hella glad I did!
---
When I started reading it at first, I was apprehensive, as I saw some of Bendis' O5 X-Men were in it. It would appear my "apprehensive[ness]" was not really necessary as the O5 members included really had no memorable role to the story.
Matthew Rosenberg is an author's name I had heard in passing but had never had an occasion to read anything he'd written. Before embarking on this tale, I read Rosenberg's NEW MUTANTS: DEAD SOULS, giving me a taste (which I liked despite the unresolved cliffhanger ending) of his writing style and how he would handle writing for mutants.
I really liked his treatment of the characters! Beast felt in character, as did nearly everyone else. Even Old Man Logan, who was a great character in Millar's miniseries but who felt like a guest who didn't really know when to go home, was quite likable, bringing some real feels to the story, and the story's ending.
Do I think this was the worst way to bring back Jean? Good Lord, no! There have been a few other occasions over the years, which were closer to that notion! But this story? Yeah, it made sense (like <b>that</b> ever happens in comics!), giving Jean a return that felt proper as well as some genuine caring for her character's history as a whole!
And how about that art? WOW! I am not what you'd call a fan of Leinil Francis Yu's art style, finding it to be too "sketchy" at times. However, in the issues he turned in (Issues 1 and 5) were unlike any I had ever seen him draw before! While the other issues from Carlos Pacheco (Issue 2)Illustrator), Ramon Rosanas (Issue 4) and Joe Bennett (Issue 3 and Issue 5, alongside Yu) all seemed to tie together perfectly, never once swaying in art style, helping the story to remain visually consistent for all five of the issues of the the mini-series!
At the end of the day, I can find very little, if anything, to gripe about with PHOENIX RESURRECTION: THE RETURN OF JEAN GREY! It's a solid story that is all about characters we have grown up with and loved, as well as more than hearty helping of the feels! And, really, at the end of the day, isn't that what it's all about anyway?
Peace.
Unfortunately, I could not get into it at the time. Mind you, this was all pre-"Dawn of X"; as I am starting a big "Dawn of X" re-visit from HoX/PoX up to present, only without the dumpster fire that was FALLEN ANGELS, it made sense to try this one again! And, as I read it all in one afternoon, it's needless to say, but I am hella glad I did!
---
When I started reading it at first, I was apprehensive, as I saw some of Bendis' O5 X-Men were in it. It would appear my "apprehensive[ness]" was not really necessary as the O5 members included really had no memorable role to the story.
Matthew Rosenberg is an author's name I had heard in passing but had never had an occasion to read anything he'd written. Before embarking on this tale, I read Rosenberg's NEW MUTANTS: DEAD SOULS, giving me a taste (which I liked despite the unresolved cliffhanger ending) of his writing style and how he would handle writing for mutants.
I really liked his treatment of the characters! Beast felt in character, as did nearly everyone else. Even Old Man Logan, who was a great character in Millar's miniseries but who felt like a guest who didn't really know when to go home, was quite likable, bringing some real feels to the story, and the story's ending.
Do I think this was the worst way to bring back Jean? Good Lord, no! There have been a few other occasions over the years, which were closer to that notion! But this story? Yeah, it made sense (like <b>that</b> ever happens in comics!), giving Jean a return that felt proper as well as some genuine caring for her character's history as a whole!
And how about that art? WOW! I am not what you'd call a fan of Leinil Francis Yu's art style, finding it to be too "sketchy" at times. However, in the issues he turned in (Issues 1 and 5) were unlike any I had ever seen him draw before! While the other issues from Carlos Pacheco (Issue 2)Illustrator), Ramon Rosanas (Issue 4) and Joe Bennett (Issue 3 and Issue 5, alongside Yu) all seemed to tie together perfectly, never once swaying in art style, helping the story to remain visually consistent for all five of the issues of the the mini-series!
At the end of the day, I can find very little, if anything, to gripe about with PHOENIX RESURRECTION: THE RETURN OF JEAN GREY! It's a solid story that is all about characters we have grown up with and loved, as well as more than hearty helping of the feels! And, really, at the end of the day, isn't that what it's all about anyway?
Peace.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After the success of a videogame based on the original film, rumors of a sequel arose many times but never came to fruition, with creative differences between Universal and John Carpenter cited as the main reason. It was oft-speculated that Carpenter made a deal to write and produce a sequel provided he got to name has director. But when he opted to name himself director the studio balked and the project fell apart. In the aftermath, rumors of a miniseries on the SyfY channel arose along with the possibility of retelling the story with 20-somethings on a tropical island but (thankfully) they never saw the light of day.
Rather than do a sequel or remake, Universal opted to jump start the franchise with a prequel that covers the events leading up to the John Carpenter film. It is set in 1982 at a Norwegian research station in Antarctica shortly before the scientists make an amazing discovery. When they uncover an alien craft that had been buried in the ice for over 100,000 years, as well as a frozen crewmember from the craft, they quickly celebrate the scientific discovery of a lifetime.
Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is recruited by a famed scientist to travel to the desolate continent to research the find. Told only that they are about to research an amazing discovery, Kate and a team of specialists arrive and are absolutely stunned by the magnitude of their discovery. Kate urges caution but is overridden by the expedition leader Dr. Halvorsan (Ulrich Thomsen), who insists on taking a tissue sample of the frozen creature encassed in a block of ice.
Later that evening while celebrating, the very much alive creature escapes from its icy prison and begins to systematically hunt the members of the research team. The creature is eventually trapped and burned which causes some consternation over the loss of the creature for further scientific study, but many in the camp applaud its loss after seeing firsthand the destruction it is capable of.
After a bizarre series of events, Kate makes the startling discovery that the cells of the creature are able to imitate and perfectly replicate any thing that it comes in contact with. As a result, not only is the creature very much alive, but the individuals in the camp may no longer be human. Trapped in a remote location with an advancing winter storm, suspicions and paranoia go through the roof as the survivors are pitted against one another, unsure of who is still human. What follows is a high-octane adventure awash in action and grisly special-effects as the two species are locked in the ultimate battle for survival.
The film has a good supporting cast and Joel Edgerton does solid supporting work as an American helicopter pilot assigned to the camp. Eric Christian Olsen provides a steadying presence as a research assistant but his character is not as developed as it could be. It is known that he and Kate know each other but their past history is undefined which makes their relationship a bit puzzling in the film especially when the survivors begin to pick sides.
While the movie is not going to make fans forget the original, it is a very worthy companion piece. As the film was winding down I found myself checking off a couple of inconsistencies with the original film, but was very pleasantly surprised when this was all explained during the end credits which perfectly synced the end of this film with the opening of John Carpenter’s classic.
In many ways the weakness of film is due to the success of John Carpenter’s previous film, in that the creature is not that much of a mystery this time around. Part of the suspense of the previous film was not knowing how the creature operated nor how it was capable of infecting and replicating numerous individuals.
This time around the suspense is lost due to the familiarity with the creature. As a result, director Matthijs van Heijningen focused his efforts on a more action adventure oriented film that gave very little time for character development. We are not told very much about many of the characters in the film as they simply exist to serve as potential victims for the creature. All one really needs to know is they are scientists or support staff as aside from a handful of characters we’re not really given much reason to care whether they survive.
Visually the film is sharp and it is clear that a lot of attention was paid to replicate the look of the previous film. The shots of vast fields of ice and snow emphasized the remote and isolated setting that the characters find themselves in and served as a reminder that danger lurks all around. The special-effects have obviously been upgraded since 1982 and it was nice to see that the creative elements did not go overboard on CGI effects, and actually used puppetry and animatronics to provide updated creature effects that were still in keeping with the look and tone from the previous film.
While the film is not likely to reach the iconic status of the previous film, it is still a worthy companion piece that has enough action and effects to keep it interesting to fans of the series – just so long as they keep their expectations reasonable and do not expect a film on par with the previous one.
Rather than do a sequel or remake, Universal opted to jump start the franchise with a prequel that covers the events leading up to the John Carpenter film. It is set in 1982 at a Norwegian research station in Antarctica shortly before the scientists make an amazing discovery. When they uncover an alien craft that had been buried in the ice for over 100,000 years, as well as a frozen crewmember from the craft, they quickly celebrate the scientific discovery of a lifetime.
Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is recruited by a famed scientist to travel to the desolate continent to research the find. Told only that they are about to research an amazing discovery, Kate and a team of specialists arrive and are absolutely stunned by the magnitude of their discovery. Kate urges caution but is overridden by the expedition leader Dr. Halvorsan (Ulrich Thomsen), who insists on taking a tissue sample of the frozen creature encassed in a block of ice.
Later that evening while celebrating, the very much alive creature escapes from its icy prison and begins to systematically hunt the members of the research team. The creature is eventually trapped and burned which causes some consternation over the loss of the creature for further scientific study, but many in the camp applaud its loss after seeing firsthand the destruction it is capable of.
After a bizarre series of events, Kate makes the startling discovery that the cells of the creature are able to imitate and perfectly replicate any thing that it comes in contact with. As a result, not only is the creature very much alive, but the individuals in the camp may no longer be human. Trapped in a remote location with an advancing winter storm, suspicions and paranoia go through the roof as the survivors are pitted against one another, unsure of who is still human. What follows is a high-octane adventure awash in action and grisly special-effects as the two species are locked in the ultimate battle for survival.
The film has a good supporting cast and Joel Edgerton does solid supporting work as an American helicopter pilot assigned to the camp. Eric Christian Olsen provides a steadying presence as a research assistant but his character is not as developed as it could be. It is known that he and Kate know each other but their past history is undefined which makes their relationship a bit puzzling in the film especially when the survivors begin to pick sides.
While the movie is not going to make fans forget the original, it is a very worthy companion piece. As the film was winding down I found myself checking off a couple of inconsistencies with the original film, but was very pleasantly surprised when this was all explained during the end credits which perfectly synced the end of this film with the opening of John Carpenter’s classic.
In many ways the weakness of film is due to the success of John Carpenter’s previous film, in that the creature is not that much of a mystery this time around. Part of the suspense of the previous film was not knowing how the creature operated nor how it was capable of infecting and replicating numerous individuals.
This time around the suspense is lost due to the familiarity with the creature. As a result, director Matthijs van Heijningen focused his efforts on a more action adventure oriented film that gave very little time for character development. We are not told very much about many of the characters in the film as they simply exist to serve as potential victims for the creature. All one really needs to know is they are scientists or support staff as aside from a handful of characters we’re not really given much reason to care whether they survive.
Visually the film is sharp and it is clear that a lot of attention was paid to replicate the look of the previous film. The shots of vast fields of ice and snow emphasized the remote and isolated setting that the characters find themselves in and served as a reminder that danger lurks all around. The special-effects have obviously been upgraded since 1982 and it was nice to see that the creative elements did not go overboard on CGI effects, and actually used puppetry and animatronics to provide updated creature effects that were still in keeping with the look and tone from the previous film.
While the film is not likely to reach the iconic status of the previous film, it is still a worthy companion piece that has enough action and effects to keep it interesting to fans of the series – just so long as they keep their expectations reasonable and do not expect a film on par with the previous one.
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated The Master and Margarita in Books
Aug 9, 2019
Worth a read? Yes. Worth a reread? Maybe not.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Master and Magarita: Mikhail Bulgakov
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.