Search
Search results
Amanda (96 KP) rated People Like Us in Books
Mar 12, 2019
Ever watched that show Pretty Little Liars or Riverdale (RIP Luke Perry) and think to yourself, this is such a stupid teenager drama show...and yet I can't stop watching or I need to know what happens next? This book doesn't read like Riverdale, but it definitely reads like an episode or another book of Pretty Little Liars. I will say that it reads like that, and a little like Karen M. McManus' novel, One of Us is Lying.
So we have Katherine "Kay" at a boarding school called, Bates. She's there for a soccer and hopes to get an athletic scholarship. One night, her and her few friends come across a body, a student and things begin to unravel about Kay and now she's being blackmailed.
Here's Kay in a nutshell. She DID NOT come from money, though she is trying her best to dress and act the part - including being the bully. It's hard to say if she goes a long with most of the stuff her friends did and said, or if she is genuinely a 'mean girl'. Although, after a prank that was her idea comes to play, my sympathy for her slowly weakens.
She gets a link to this revenge blog and it works along with algorithm that if she doesn't get a student off the class roster (meaning getting them expelled) then information about her is leaked to the police that could put her in prison. How it works is the blog is a stove and it opens for a 'recipe'. The recipe is a poem and sometimes had photos or information that incriminates her friends. One of them, for example, hints that one of her friends cheats on her tests.
To add to the drama, Kay struggles with her romantic feelings for her best friend (though I often wonder why) Brie whom has a girlfriend. They've gone through the whole will they or will they not bit, and although Brie has a girlfriend, Kay still struggles. She also has conflicting feelings for her ex-boyfriend, Spencer, who cheated on her...oddly enough with the student they found dead.
Kay's life is one long soap opera. She harbors a secret about her brother's murder and her best friend's suicide (before she was shipped to Bates). Her and her group of friends makes me think of the reasons of why I didn't hang out with a group of girls growing up. They are catty and vengeful. Sometimes guys aren't any better, but I had more guy friends than I did girl friends growing up.
I dozed off on most of the book because Kay started babbling on about certain things that just didn't keep my interest. The more she told her story the more intrigued I did get, but in the end, I still couldn't really feel much for her. I'm not sure if that was the intention of the story - perhaps if it were, it wouldn't be told by Kay. The characters were not likable, but I think that was the point.
I didn't even care for Brie whom is basically the only NICE girl in the whole bunch. I can understand her being hurt by Kay (and Kay has said and done some things to warrant that), but at the same time, I wonder what it is about her that has Kay wanting her so badly.
I liked Nola for a moment because she was a computer nerd and liked literature, but that didn't last long at all. The only character I felt for was a cat named Hunter...poor kitty.
The story as a whole wasn't bad. Each side story came around in full circle and nothing was left out or left unresolved. I didn't even have a problem with how it ended, because honestly, how else would it have ended? Kay expresses regret for her actions and the things she has said, but if the story were to continue into a book two, I better see some major growth from everything she endured.
So we have Katherine "Kay" at a boarding school called, Bates. She's there for a soccer and hopes to get an athletic scholarship. One night, her and her few friends come across a body, a student and things begin to unravel about Kay and now she's being blackmailed.
Here's Kay in a nutshell. She DID NOT come from money, though she is trying her best to dress and act the part - including being the bully. It's hard to say if she goes a long with most of the stuff her friends did and said, or if she is genuinely a 'mean girl'. Although, after a prank that was her idea comes to play, my sympathy for her slowly weakens.
She gets a link to this revenge blog and it works along with algorithm that if she doesn't get a student off the class roster (meaning getting them expelled) then information about her is leaked to the police that could put her in prison. How it works is the blog is a stove and it opens for a 'recipe'. The recipe is a poem and sometimes had photos or information that incriminates her friends. One of them, for example, hints that one of her friends cheats on her tests.
To add to the drama, Kay struggles with her romantic feelings for her best friend (though I often wonder why) Brie whom has a girlfriend. They've gone through the whole will they or will they not bit, and although Brie has a girlfriend, Kay still struggles. She also has conflicting feelings for her ex-boyfriend, Spencer, who cheated on her...oddly enough with the student they found dead.
Kay's life is one long soap opera. She harbors a secret about her brother's murder and her best friend's suicide (before she was shipped to Bates). Her and her group of friends makes me think of the reasons of why I didn't hang out with a group of girls growing up. They are catty and vengeful. Sometimes guys aren't any better, but I had more guy friends than I did girl friends growing up.
I dozed off on most of the book because Kay started babbling on about certain things that just didn't keep my interest. The more she told her story the more intrigued I did get, but in the end, I still couldn't really feel much for her. I'm not sure if that was the intention of the story - perhaps if it were, it wouldn't be told by Kay. The characters were not likable, but I think that was the point.
I didn't even care for Brie whom is basically the only NICE girl in the whole bunch. I can understand her being hurt by Kay (and Kay has said and done some things to warrant that), but at the same time, I wonder what it is about her that has Kay wanting her so badly.
I liked Nola for a moment because she was a computer nerd and liked literature, but that didn't last long at all. The only character I felt for was a cat named Hunter...poor kitty.
The story as a whole wasn't bad. Each side story came around in full circle and nothing was left out or left unresolved. I didn't even have a problem with how it ended, because honestly, how else would it have ended? Kay expresses regret for her actions and the things she has said, but if the story were to continue into a book two, I better see some major growth from everything she endured.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 8, 2019
"war is coming to the surface"
Aquaman is absolutely a disciple of the superhero formula we've seen used, reused and recycled over the past couple decades...but its formula done right. There's an inherent lunacy to a hero like Aquaman; his myth is built upon a lost Atlantean culture that's simultaneously advanced technologically and heavily influenced by ancient Greek mythology, and his powers included near-Superman levels of strength and invulnerability existing alongside an ability to communicate with marine life. This makes approaching his story from a gritty, realistic perspective damn near impossible.
Instead Wan and the writers behind Aquaman intelligently focus on world-building and following the tried-and-true "heroic journey"; complete with initial rejection of a prophesied role, slow but steady immersion into said role's culture, recognition of the need for growth and change, and eventual assumption of role. It's been seen before and it'll be seen again. But what propels Aquaman ahead of other films like it is the energy that Wan imbues it with. It's goofy without undermining the sincerity of Arthur's journey. It's fast-paced and simple-minded without sacrificing the weight and universality of this particular hero's myth. It's loud and colorful and *full* of CGI everything without reducing itself to an over-commercialized, artless heap of nothingness.
It's a big-ass blockbuster with personality. Momoa has charisma to spare; he owns the physicality and irreverence of this new imagining of the king of the ocean perfectly. Amber Heard is sexy and badass as Mera; something of a victim of a forced romance but also a compelling and strong protagonist in her own right. Patrick Wilson as Oceanmaster (call me....Oceanmaster) is given enough screen-time to develop that he's more than a punching bag for Aquaman; but actually a character with ambitions and a defined, fleshed-out purpose. The origin segment is tightly done and more than enough to set the stage for what is to come. And probably the strongest aspect of this picture, the costuming and world-building, is off the charts. Similar to the enduring fantasy films that precede this (LOTR, Star Wars, Avatar for a few examples) the undersea kingdoms are a place I want to return to. They aren't just my world dressed up with CGI and the occasional costuming flourish; they're entirely foreign and endlessly inventive. Probably a solid third of the film is simply Aquaman, and the audience, being told about this world and shown it by Mera. While that may not be artistically prestigious strategy for engaging audiences, it entertains and fascinates on a "turn off your brain and look at those pretty colors" sort of way. There's a simple glee in seeing sharks ridden like horses or an octopus pounding a war-time set of drums.
I always offer the disclaimer when writing about nerdy films that I love which is this: I am a nerd. While I wasn't particularly attached to Aquaman growing up; his journey, the nature of this sort of film and the cinematic universe he will be growing into are fundamentally important to me, and I like to embrace that bias rather than keep it in check with reduced ratings or "objective" analysis. Whether it be a giant, confusing and chaotic battle between underwater armies or the horrifying descent into "the trench"; you'll always find me looking up at the screen like a little kid. Or moments like Arthur meeting Mera and confronting is past, or taking upon the role of king while wielding the trident; I just love that sort of stuff. I'm a sucker for these beats and this formula; and all signs point to this continuing. So while I may like it more than most; I'd mostly like to say Aquaman still distinguishes itself as a particularly goofy, sprawling, mythic, and metal experience that deserved to be seen on the big-screen, and to be celebrated as the fantasy film it is. It's a great time, and a nice addition to the DC film franchise.
Instead Wan and the writers behind Aquaman intelligently focus on world-building and following the tried-and-true "heroic journey"; complete with initial rejection of a prophesied role, slow but steady immersion into said role's culture, recognition of the need for growth and change, and eventual assumption of role. It's been seen before and it'll be seen again. But what propels Aquaman ahead of other films like it is the energy that Wan imbues it with. It's goofy without undermining the sincerity of Arthur's journey. It's fast-paced and simple-minded without sacrificing the weight and universality of this particular hero's myth. It's loud and colorful and *full* of CGI everything without reducing itself to an over-commercialized, artless heap of nothingness.
It's a big-ass blockbuster with personality. Momoa has charisma to spare; he owns the physicality and irreverence of this new imagining of the king of the ocean perfectly. Amber Heard is sexy and badass as Mera; something of a victim of a forced romance but also a compelling and strong protagonist in her own right. Patrick Wilson as Oceanmaster (call me....Oceanmaster) is given enough screen-time to develop that he's more than a punching bag for Aquaman; but actually a character with ambitions and a defined, fleshed-out purpose. The origin segment is tightly done and more than enough to set the stage for what is to come. And probably the strongest aspect of this picture, the costuming and world-building, is off the charts. Similar to the enduring fantasy films that precede this (LOTR, Star Wars, Avatar for a few examples) the undersea kingdoms are a place I want to return to. They aren't just my world dressed up with CGI and the occasional costuming flourish; they're entirely foreign and endlessly inventive. Probably a solid third of the film is simply Aquaman, and the audience, being told about this world and shown it by Mera. While that may not be artistically prestigious strategy for engaging audiences, it entertains and fascinates on a "turn off your brain and look at those pretty colors" sort of way. There's a simple glee in seeing sharks ridden like horses or an octopus pounding a war-time set of drums.
I always offer the disclaimer when writing about nerdy films that I love which is this: I am a nerd. While I wasn't particularly attached to Aquaman growing up; his journey, the nature of this sort of film and the cinematic universe he will be growing into are fundamentally important to me, and I like to embrace that bias rather than keep it in check with reduced ratings or "objective" analysis. Whether it be a giant, confusing and chaotic battle between underwater armies or the horrifying descent into "the trench"; you'll always find me looking up at the screen like a little kid. Or moments like Arthur meeting Mera and confronting is past, or taking upon the role of king while wielding the trident; I just love that sort of stuff. I'm a sucker for these beats and this formula; and all signs point to this continuing. So while I may like it more than most; I'd mostly like to say Aquaman still distinguishes itself as a particularly goofy, sprawling, mythic, and metal experience that deserved to be seen on the big-screen, and to be celebrated as the fantasy film it is. It's a great time, and a nice addition to the DC film franchise.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
I'm a celebrity... Get me out of here
It’s been 22 years since Joe Johnston thrilled cinemagoers with a little film called Jumanji. Starring the late, great Robin Williams, it has amassed a huge following over the years and has become nearly as loved as its leading star.
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
"As far as I’m concerned, I came out of the womb spouting cynicism and wishing for rain."
"As far as I’m concerned, I came out of the womb spouting cynicism and wishing for rain."
A while back, I read an online comic strip by the same author, Heartstopper Volume 1. I found it by chance and I literally flew through it. I adored it and I went ahead and TBR’d some of her other books. I found this one on Scribd and come to find this was her baby. This was her debut novel. The story was pretty good, it is NOT a love story, but I sometimes found myself getting frustrated with the main character. Reasons why are listed below.
The story is told from a teenager named Victoria ‘Tori’ Spring. She has two younger brothers and she is quite…indifferent. She has one best friend, and honestly one friend only, and she’s very much the pessimist. I can’t fully fault her for that, but some things that I just CANNOT tolerate. I found myself gasping and GLARING at the words as I read them.
She hates books. Yes, she said she hates books (-1 point). She knows the name of each book and the author who wrote them, but she won’t actually read them.
Though she loves film so I’ll give the point back to her (0).
"When you watch a film, you’re sort of an outsider looking in. With a book – you’re right there. You are inside. You are the main character."
She thinks Pride and Prejudice is ridiculous and boring…she gets positive points for that (+2) – I’m sorry I’m in the minority. I do not care for Jane Austen and find her so called romance novels dull and boring. Not sorry!
She despises Disney because the movies are total fake and unrealistic. WELL NO SHIT! It’s DISNEY! (-200) – I’m a Disney nerd and while I don’t agree with sugar coating the original fair tales, I still LOVE Disney. You can’t fault me for that!
Anyway…
Tori is highly cynical and while I can appreciate that in her, sometimes she made my favorite cartoon character, Daria, seem like a sweetheart. Two guys come into Tori’s life. One was an old childhood friend, Lucas, and the other is someone she met before, Michael. At the same time, a blog group called ‘Solitaire’ starts making trouble…almost in Tori’s honor.
I won’t go into great detail, mostly because I would definitely give more away than I want to. I breezed through this story quickly, but there are just some things in the story that just didn’t sit well with me.
This guy Lucas was so sketchy that he nearly drove Tori crazy with his change in personality.
Her parents…they literally do not seem to care. Her mother most of all. She is mostly on her computer and seems to kind of be absent, mentally, as a parental figure. That never gets resolved, and I don’t know if that’s a good thing or bad thing. In the end, it really bothered me at how disinterested her parents really were. I get that perhaps it’s something you do when you’re bringing up teenagers, but damn!!
"I swear to God I’m a freak! I mean it. One day I’m going to forget how to wake up."
You’re probably thinking that this really doesn’t seem like it would be in the mental health genre. It is. Tori goes through an awful lot in this story, not to mention the mental strain with her brother, Charlie. I will say there are some MILD trigger warnings regarding implied self harm.
I was kind of left with mixed emotions with this book. I have great respect for this author and this being her first story. I know it’s near and dear to her heart. I wouldn’t say that this was at the top of my list, but it’s not at the bottom either. I definitely appreciated it NOT BEING a love story. Although it seemed like it would, despite the subtitle of the book, but I’m glad it wasn’t.
A while back, I read an online comic strip by the same author, Heartstopper Volume 1. I found it by chance and I literally flew through it. I adored it and I went ahead and TBR’d some of her other books. I found this one on Scribd and come to find this was her baby. This was her debut novel. The story was pretty good, it is NOT a love story, but I sometimes found myself getting frustrated with the main character. Reasons why are listed below.
The story is told from a teenager named Victoria ‘Tori’ Spring. She has two younger brothers and she is quite…indifferent. She has one best friend, and honestly one friend only, and she’s very much the pessimist. I can’t fully fault her for that, but some things that I just CANNOT tolerate. I found myself gasping and GLARING at the words as I read them.
She hates books. Yes, she said she hates books (-1 point). She knows the name of each book and the author who wrote them, but she won’t actually read them.
Though she loves film so I’ll give the point back to her (0).
"When you watch a film, you’re sort of an outsider looking in. With a book – you’re right there. You are inside. You are the main character."
She thinks Pride and Prejudice is ridiculous and boring…she gets positive points for that (+2) – I’m sorry I’m in the minority. I do not care for Jane Austen and find her so called romance novels dull and boring. Not sorry!
She despises Disney because the movies are total fake and unrealistic. WELL NO SHIT! It’s DISNEY! (-200) – I’m a Disney nerd and while I don’t agree with sugar coating the original fair tales, I still LOVE Disney. You can’t fault me for that!
Anyway…
Tori is highly cynical and while I can appreciate that in her, sometimes she made my favorite cartoon character, Daria, seem like a sweetheart. Two guys come into Tori’s life. One was an old childhood friend, Lucas, and the other is someone she met before, Michael. At the same time, a blog group called ‘Solitaire’ starts making trouble…almost in Tori’s honor.
I won’t go into great detail, mostly because I would definitely give more away than I want to. I breezed through this story quickly, but there are just some things in the story that just didn’t sit well with me.
This guy Lucas was so sketchy that he nearly drove Tori crazy with his change in personality.
Her parents…they literally do not seem to care. Her mother most of all. She is mostly on her computer and seems to kind of be absent, mentally, as a parental figure. That never gets resolved, and I don’t know if that’s a good thing or bad thing. In the end, it really bothered me at how disinterested her parents really were. I get that perhaps it’s something you do when you’re bringing up teenagers, but damn!!
"I swear to God I’m a freak! I mean it. One day I’m going to forget how to wake up."
You’re probably thinking that this really doesn’t seem like it would be in the mental health genre. It is. Tori goes through an awful lot in this story, not to mention the mental strain with her brother, Charlie. I will say there are some MILD trigger warnings regarding implied self harm.
I was kind of left with mixed emotions with this book. I have great respect for this author and this being her first story. I know it’s near and dear to her heart. I wouldn’t say that this was at the top of my list, but it’s not at the bottom either. I definitely appreciated it NOT BEING a love story. Although it seemed like it would, despite the subtitle of the book, but I’m glad it wasn’t.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
I was introduced to Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (the amazing book series written by Alvin Schwartz back in 1981) in my Junior High history class. An odd place for sure to listen to this amazing collection of stories, and yet it displayed how these stories are impactful even if you aren’t reading them around a campfire in the middle of the woods. Schwartz had written two additional sequels to his stories in 1984 and 1991 and the incredibly creepy illustrations (by Stephen Gammell) helped to complete a collection of books that are at home in anyone’s collection both young and old.
The 80’s was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyone’s mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for “saving” them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of “Scary Stories”. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a “scary” story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether it’s the “Red Dot” or “Harold”, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. That’s not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
The 80’s was a decade obsessed with the occult and works of fiction that parents thought were written to corrupt the minds of the youth of the age. Before video games were blamed for all the evil in the world there was Heavy Metal music, the fantastical role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons and books such as these that parents rallied around and attempted to ban from schools and after school functions. Looking back now at the hysteria that this caused is almost laughable, but for those of us growing up in that time it was a very real threat to the imaginations of youth around the globe. Outside of this brief history lesson however, I wondered how the books would translate into a movie.
Our story begins on Halloween night, the year is 1968 and the Vietnam War and the upcoming presidential elections are on everyone’s mind. Stella (Zoe Colletti) and her nerd friends Chuck (Austin Zajur) and Auggie (Gabriel Rush) decide that this will be the year that they get revenge on the local bully Tommy (Austin Abrams) for all his years of stealing candy from them on Halloween. After things go predictably wrong, the young group of kids are pursued to a drive-in theater where they seek refuge in a car that is owned by another out-of-town youngster named Ramon (Michael Garza). As thanks for “saving” them from a certain beating, Stella and the group decide to take Ramon to a real-life haunted house. A place where a young Sarah Bellows would tell stories to frighten children only for them to end up dead days later. While exploring the house the young group discover the hidden room of young Sarah Bellows and come across her book of “Scary Stories”. Unable to contain her own curiosity, Stella takes the book home with her and watches as the words on the pages turn into living nightmares of their own darkest fears.
Produced by Guillermo del Toro, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, Scary Stories takes a handful of fan favorites and weaves them into a “scary” story of their very own. Instead of simply being a collection of haunting tales, each one serves a purpose, whether it’s the “Red Dot” or “Harold”, each one is used to drive the story even further along. While at first, I was hoping that it would be a collection of short stories featuring these timeless classics, the way in which each individual story progresses the plot leads to a far more interesting experience overall.
Those looking for a movie filled with frightening tales that will have you reaching for the closest shoulder (whether you know who it belongs to or not) will be in for a bit of disappointment. That’s not to take away from the incredible amount of vision needed to bring these classic stories to life, but it takes on a far more contemporary feel, then the dark stories and supernatural visions of the books that came before it. The film comes away feeling more like Goosebumps and less like Freakshow which makes sense given its PG-13 rating and its obvious pre-teen to teen demographic. The movie is still fun however, particularly for those who fondly remember the stories from their youth and is one that will proudly sit beside the likes of Hocus Pocus when it comes to network television down the road as part of its likely Halloween line-up.
4 out of 5 stars
http://sknr.net/2019/08/08/scary-stories-to-tell-in-the-dark/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mitchells vs The Machines (2021) in Movies
May 16, 2021
Brilliantly original animation (1 more)
Fantastic laugh-out-loud gags throughout, many with a movie nerd bias
Dog-Pig-Dog-Pig-Loaf of Bread… KERBOOM!
Katie Mitchell (voiced by Abbi Jacobson) dreams of being a great film director (joining her icons on her version of Mount Rushmore!). She's about to travel to a west-coast film college when her dad Rick (Danny Mcbride) decides to cancel her air ticket and try to re-engage with her through one last epic road trip. Together with wife Linda (Maya Rudolph), dinosaur-mad son Aaron (director Michael Rianda) and cross-eyed pug Monchi (Doug the Pug!) they set off on their journey.
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I went into the screen with wildly low expectations for Venom, nothing in the trailer had me on the edge of my seat. In the run up to me going there were more and more reviews appearing saying that it was bad, not that I read any of them. So many people just felt the need to put it right in the title... yes, yes, but much more obvious than mine!!
But you know what? It wasn't bad. That's not to say it was good, but it wasn't bad. I didn't laugh anywhere near as much as everyone else did, but it did have some funny bits in it. I'm sorry though, "blowing like a turd in the wind"? Not funny. Wasn't funny in the trailer, not funny in the film.
Full disclosure, I've booked to see this again. Not because I enjoyed it so much but because the people who were watching it in the screen with me were the noisiest people on the planet.
I understand that they couldn't accurately do Venom's origin story as it invilves Spider-man but I'm not sure how I felt about this version of events. Also, if a super nerd out there could help me out... I thought that Venom was the name for the combined host and symbiote, but in the film the symbiote is called Venom... which way is correct?
There are some great bits between Eddie and Venom. Venom obviously thinks Eddie is a bit of a wimp and doesn't mind pointing it out. He's embarrassed by him putting his hands up in surrender and by him being unwilling to jump out of an upper floor window. Both bring amusing exchanges.
When we see the duo fighting and evading the tac team in the early part of the film all I could think was how reminiscent of Upgrade it was when he was being controlled by Venom. I also got flashes of other Marvel offerings, specifically Hulk. Venom tossing people around by their feet, then witnessing him fight Riot gave me flashbacks of Hulk and The Abomination. The latter was a lot easier to watch than the fight between this new pair though. It was way too chaotic, and almost impossible to figure out exactly what was happening.
In general I'm not a fan of the CGI symbiotes, they look a lot more cartoony and feel slightly unfinished, like there's a layer missing to make them more realistic. I also wasn't overly keen on much of the acting, I found Tom Hardy to be lacking and didn't find Eddie Brock to be very dynamic for an investigative journalist.
The first of the credit scenes lines us up with a potential sequel with a quick appearence by Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady who historically was the original host for Carnage. Harrelson has grown on me immensely in recent years with his acting and it would be a shame not to see him given this serial killers' role in the Universe... but with a film that feels like it fits more in the Maguire era of Spider-man movies I personally can't see a sequel from Venom doing him justice.
The second credit scene felt a little like a cheat to me as it wasn't anything to do with the film. It was entertaining despite that though. A little lighthearted humour but it felt completely out of place, it was much more like a short you would watch before the main event. Perhaps it would have been better as a "feature length" trailer than a credit scene.
What should you do?
You should probably see it. In my opinion it doesn't compare to any of the other "super" movies, and he isn't going to become my favourite anti-hero, but it is a reasonable diversion and the humour that's there isn't that bad.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have a symbiote that won't kill be and wouldn't look so crazy then I think I'd probably see where it took me.
But you know what? It wasn't bad. That's not to say it was good, but it wasn't bad. I didn't laugh anywhere near as much as everyone else did, but it did have some funny bits in it. I'm sorry though, "blowing like a turd in the wind"? Not funny. Wasn't funny in the trailer, not funny in the film.
Full disclosure, I've booked to see this again. Not because I enjoyed it so much but because the people who were watching it in the screen with me were the noisiest people on the planet.
I understand that they couldn't accurately do Venom's origin story as it invilves Spider-man but I'm not sure how I felt about this version of events. Also, if a super nerd out there could help me out... I thought that Venom was the name for the combined host and symbiote, but in the film the symbiote is called Venom... which way is correct?
There are some great bits between Eddie and Venom. Venom obviously thinks Eddie is a bit of a wimp and doesn't mind pointing it out. He's embarrassed by him putting his hands up in surrender and by him being unwilling to jump out of an upper floor window. Both bring amusing exchanges.
When we see the duo fighting and evading the tac team in the early part of the film all I could think was how reminiscent of Upgrade it was when he was being controlled by Venom. I also got flashes of other Marvel offerings, specifically Hulk. Venom tossing people around by their feet, then witnessing him fight Riot gave me flashbacks of Hulk and The Abomination. The latter was a lot easier to watch than the fight between this new pair though. It was way too chaotic, and almost impossible to figure out exactly what was happening.
In general I'm not a fan of the CGI symbiotes, they look a lot more cartoony and feel slightly unfinished, like there's a layer missing to make them more realistic. I also wasn't overly keen on much of the acting, I found Tom Hardy to be lacking and didn't find Eddie Brock to be very dynamic for an investigative journalist.
The first of the credit scenes lines us up with a potential sequel with a quick appearence by Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady who historically was the original host for Carnage. Harrelson has grown on me immensely in recent years with his acting and it would be a shame not to see him given this serial killers' role in the Universe... but with a film that feels like it fits more in the Maguire era of Spider-man movies I personally can't see a sequel from Venom doing him justice.
The second credit scene felt a little like a cheat to me as it wasn't anything to do with the film. It was entertaining despite that though. A little lighthearted humour but it felt completely out of place, it was much more like a short you would watch before the main event. Perhaps it would have been better as a "feature length" trailer than a credit scene.
What should you do?
You should probably see it. In my opinion it doesn't compare to any of the other "super" movies, and he isn't going to become my favourite anti-hero, but it is a reasonable diversion and the humour that's there isn't that bad.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have a symbiote that won't kill be and wouldn't look so crazy then I think I'd probably see where it took me.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
A Comedy Classic
My daughter was flipping channels the other day and ran across the great 1984 Supernatural comedy GHOSTBUSTERS and stopped to watch for awhile. As happens with her generation, she eventually got more interested in her phone and friends and wandered away. Me? I was drawn back into this film so much so that I went downstairs, grabbed the DVD (yes, kids, I still own DVDs) and popped the film into my Home Theater System to give it a proper viewing.
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 17, 2018
Entertaining film - but the book was better
I loved the book.
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
