Search
Search results
Radical Business Model Transformation: Gaining the Competitive Edge in a Disruptive World
Carsten Linz, Gunter Muller-Stewens and Alexander Zimmermann
Book
Many companies are relying on a business model that is fundamentally suited to a different era. Now,...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Mr. Vampire (1985) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
When a 20 year old corpse is exhumed for a re burial Master Gau and his two students find that the body hasn't rotted. When the corpse re animates as a vampire the trio have to protect the vampires family and find a way to stop the monster.
Mr vampire is a Chinese horror/comedy and a breakthrough 'Jiangshi' (Rotting Copse) movie due it's mixing of slapstick comedy, kung-fu, Chinese folklore and western vampire myth and has a number of sequels.
The humour is very slapstick, with people getting hit with furniture or getting their head stuck in prison cell bars and the horror level is quite low and most of the effects are quite cheesy.
The Kung-Fu aspect makes the fight scenes entertaining and both the vampire and the ghost have to be dealt with slightly differently..
The image of the living corpse, be it vampire or zombie, being controlled by a yellow paper talisman stuck to it's head is though to have come from Mr Vampire and has been used in many subsequent Jiangshi film as well as many other shows, including the recent Netflix show 'Kingdom' where we see a scene of villagers selling the talismans when the zombies are threatening their village.
Mr Vampire manages to pull off Horror comedy in a way that is watchable by almost anyone. The film has a 15 (UK) rating and does contain vampires and ghosts but neither are overly frighting, partly due to the effects of the time.
Mr vampire is a Chinese horror/comedy and a breakthrough 'Jiangshi' (Rotting Copse) movie due it's mixing of slapstick comedy, kung-fu, Chinese folklore and western vampire myth and has a number of sequels.
The humour is very slapstick, with people getting hit with furniture or getting their head stuck in prison cell bars and the horror level is quite low and most of the effects are quite cheesy.
The Kung-Fu aspect makes the fight scenes entertaining and both the vampire and the ghost have to be dealt with slightly differently..
The image of the living corpse, be it vampire or zombie, being controlled by a yellow paper talisman stuck to it's head is though to have come from Mr Vampire and has been used in many subsequent Jiangshi film as well as many other shows, including the recent Netflix show 'Kingdom' where we see a scene of villagers selling the talismans when the zombies are threatening their village.
Mr Vampire manages to pull off Horror comedy in a way that is watchable by almost anyone. The film has a 15 (UK) rating and does contain vampires and ghosts but neither are overly frighting, partly due to the effects of the time.
David McK (3562 KP) rated Extraction (2020) in Movies
Jul 25, 2020
Brutal and bloody Netflix actioner starring a post-Avengers Chris Hemsworth, that harkens back to the heyday of just these type of 80's action man movies i.e. little in the way of plot, relying instead on the charisma of its leading man, and on the action scenes.
And that's a good thing (sometimes you just want junk food, or the cinematic equivalent thereof).
In this, Hemsworth plays a black marker mercenary named Tyler Rake (and with a name like that, you *know* there's going to be at least one scene where he uses said implement to dispose of some goons), who is hired to rescue the kidnapped son of an imprisoned Bangladeshian international crime lord, with said son held in a city run by a rival of that crime lord.
He easily rescues the son, but then things take a turn for the complicated when they are betrayed, and he must escort that kid out of the city whilst being hunted by both those who wish to recapture Ovi (the teenage kid), and by those who don't want to pay him for the rescue ...
As I said earlier, little in the way of plot - a straight 'get the package from point A to point B - but that is made up for in some stunning (and bruising) action scenes: in particular, the one seemingly-long-take as Tyler and Ovi are hunted through an apartment bloke, across the rooftops, and out on the streets.
Ambiguous ending also leaves it open for a sequel!
And that's a good thing (sometimes you just want junk food, or the cinematic equivalent thereof).
In this, Hemsworth plays a black marker mercenary named Tyler Rake (and with a name like that, you *know* there's going to be at least one scene where he uses said implement to dispose of some goons), who is hired to rescue the kidnapped son of an imprisoned Bangladeshian international crime lord, with said son held in a city run by a rival of that crime lord.
He easily rescues the son, but then things take a turn for the complicated when they are betrayed, and he must escort that kid out of the city whilst being hunted by both those who wish to recapture Ovi (the teenage kid), and by those who don't want to pay him for the rescue ...
As I said earlier, little in the way of plot - a straight 'get the package from point A to point B - but that is made up for in some stunning (and bruising) action scenes: in particular, the one seemingly-long-take as Tyler and Ovi are hunted through an apartment bloke, across the rooftops, and out on the streets.
Ambiguous ending also leaves it open for a sequel!
Ari Aster recommended Songs From The Second Floor (2000) in Movies (curated)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Fear Street Part One: 1994 (2021) in Movies
Jul 3, 2021
From it's very Scream-esque cold open, to it's Intruder style finale, Fear Street: 1994 is an unabashed love letter to the slasher genre that benefits from a cast of likable characters, and doesn't shy away from the gory stuff.
The group of friends that the narrative revolves around share some decent chemistry. The vibe that surrounds them isn't to dissimilar to the characters in Scary Stories or even Stranger Things. They're written to be rooted for, which makes all the more impact when the final third comes knocking and the body count piles up. The various killers on the loose are clearly inspired by other slasher icons, but the multiple-killer aspect makes them interesting enough, even if it's just surface level, and the overarching narrative to do with witchcraft is intriguing.
Unfortunately, the pacing is a bit off. 1994 really takes it's time to get to where it wants to be, and the first half drags in places. It also falls into the Suicide Squad trap of spaffing out well known songs, one after another, without any reprieve. One of my absolute pet peeves in modern movies by the way, but thankfully, this doesn't last for the whole runtime.
Overall, 1994 is a fun, if flawed horror ride, with some solid gore to boot, that will surely offer something for any slasher fans out there. Genuinely looking forward to the next two installments over the coming weeks, and it's always a bonus when horror in general gets a big push from the likes of Netflix.
The group of friends that the narrative revolves around share some decent chemistry. The vibe that surrounds them isn't to dissimilar to the characters in Scary Stories or even Stranger Things. They're written to be rooted for, which makes all the more impact when the final third comes knocking and the body count piles up. The various killers on the loose are clearly inspired by other slasher icons, but the multiple-killer aspect makes them interesting enough, even if it's just surface level, and the overarching narrative to do with witchcraft is intriguing.
Unfortunately, the pacing is a bit off. 1994 really takes it's time to get to where it wants to be, and the first half drags in places. It also falls into the Suicide Squad trap of spaffing out well known songs, one after another, without any reprieve. One of my absolute pet peeves in modern movies by the way, but thankfully, this doesn't last for the whole runtime.
Overall, 1994 is a fun, if flawed horror ride, with some solid gore to boot, that will surely offer something for any slasher fans out there. Genuinely looking forward to the next two installments over the coming weeks, and it's always a bonus when horror in general gets a big push from the likes of Netflix.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Old Guard (2020) in Movies
Jul 26, 2020
Decent entertainment
I never hold out much hope for Netflix original films, however I was pleasantly surprised with this as it managed to hold my attention throughout with a decent amount of entertainment.
The star of this film is undoubtedly Charlize Theron. There no one better to call when you want a kick ass female lead, and she plays this role to perfection in the same way she did Atomic Blonde. She is without a doubt the best thing about this film. However the rest of the cast are decent - it’s been a while since I’ve seen Matthias Schoenaerts in anything and Chiwetel Ejiofor is always good, but I do think they have been let down a little by the majority of the focus being on Andy.
The plot is probably the biggest letdown with this film as immortality aside, this is nothing new. It’s full of one dimensional bad guys (Harry Melling hamming it up to the max) and plot twists that you can see coming a mile off. However despite the plot unoriginality, the action and the general fast pace of the film along with the endearing cast, the fitting flashbacks and the decision not to explain the immortality origins (I hate it when films concoct overelaborate explanations that are entirely unnecessary) make for a pretty enjoyable and entertaining watch. The 2 hours virtually fly by. I’m not convinced by the sequel baiting ending as I dislike films doing this, but would I watch a sequel? Actually yes I would.
The star of this film is undoubtedly Charlize Theron. There no one better to call when you want a kick ass female lead, and she plays this role to perfection in the same way she did Atomic Blonde. She is without a doubt the best thing about this film. However the rest of the cast are decent - it’s been a while since I’ve seen Matthias Schoenaerts in anything and Chiwetel Ejiofor is always good, but I do think they have been let down a little by the majority of the focus being on Andy.
The plot is probably the biggest letdown with this film as immortality aside, this is nothing new. It’s full of one dimensional bad guys (Harry Melling hamming it up to the max) and plot twists that you can see coming a mile off. However despite the plot unoriginality, the action and the general fast pace of the film along with the endearing cast, the fitting flashbacks and the decision not to explain the immortality origins (I hate it when films concoct overelaborate explanations that are entirely unnecessary) make for a pretty enjoyable and entertaining watch. The 2 hours virtually fly by. I’m not convinced by the sequel baiting ending as I dislike films doing this, but would I watch a sequel? Actually yes I would.
Logan Eccles (135 KP) rated The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance in TV
Oct 1, 2020 (Updated Oct 2, 2020)
Henson Lives on
First off this is one I will not be able to be unbias because I've been I huge Henson fan my whole 24 years of life. Puppetry helped me find my young voice when I was too ashamed to speak with my speech impediment. That being said here's my Review. Thank you, Netflix for producing this modern-day masterpiece of pure brilliance. The mixture of classic Henson puppetry and CGI was blended well and even though most times you could tell the difference of the change and looked good. As the animation and puppetry were superb so was the story development. The progression of the story was fun, smart, and beautiful. The use of characters from the movie and newly introduced characters for the show were also smart and developed well for the overall story. The cast was a good assembly of voices, though some were easily confused for others with similarity in voices, they were still fantastic. Simon Peg was especially great as The Chamberlin was my favorite character from the movie, Simon did a great job of mimicking the voice and keeping it as special as it was, Helena Bonham also did a good job of this with Ogla. Finally, the way the show ended at a moment that tied it to the movie but also left enough space to make a possible second season was smart. When I first heard this was going to be a show and not a movie I wasn't sure it would work but it was great I highly recommend.
Fire HD 8 Kids Edition Tablet
7.0
Rate It
Tech Watch
Up to $144 in savings on Fire HD 8 tablet, 1 year of Amazon FreeTime Unlimited, and a Kid-Proof...
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Russian Doll in TV
Jun 20, 2019
After the success of both Parks and Recreation and Orange is the New Black, I was intrigued by a new Netflix series created by Amy Poehler and Natasha Lyonne. Many fans know them as Leslie Knope and Nicky Nichols, and I’m sure we can all agree they’d make a very interesting duo.
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 1 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
The phenomenon of “true crime” as entertainment is disturbing. What we are saying when we subscribe to watch these compellingly morbid shows is that, of course, we don’t “enjoy” or condone the crimes themselves. But, we do increasingly expect that without the grotesque detail of primary crime scene evidence, documented visually, we can switch over to another show that will give us our macabre kick. So, it is a dangerous precedent to say that without that factor we won’t engage.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.