Search
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
13 years have passed since Alice first visited Wonderland. She was just a little girl back then. A mad, little girl plagued by a nightmare. Now, almost 20, Alice finds herself thrust headfirst into adulthood yet continues to have the same dream for as long as she can remember. On the verge of being thrown into a marriage she's unsure of, Alice finds herself easily distracted by the simplest things. What would it be like to fly? What if women wore trousers and men wore dresses? Or the fact that wearing a corset is similar to wearing a codfish on your head. The White Rabbit eventually distracts Alice long enough to lead her back down the rabbit hole for a return visit to Wonderland, but Alice is still under the impression that it's all a dream and has no recollection of her first trip there. Since Alice's first visit, however, the Red Queen used the Jabberwocky to relinquish the crown from her sister, the White Queen, and now reigns supreme as the queen of Wonderland. As the creatures of Wonderland debate whether this Alice is the "right Alice" that is destined to kill the Jabberwocky and end the Red Queen's reign, Alice struggles with trying to wake up from this very realistic dream.
As a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, I was seriously looking forward to this. The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, whether you love it or hate it, has resulted in some fairly creative and successful works. At this point in his career, it's fairly easy to spot something that Tim Burton has done. Like most directors, he has a specific style and Burton's seems to revolve around things that are dark, grisly, and bizarre all rolled into one. So how would Burton's wonderfully grotesque style mesh with Lewis Carroll's delightfully imaginative Alice and her trip to Wonderland? To be blunt, beautifully.
The way Burton went about the subject matter is probably the best way to go. It's an original tale with characters that are already well-established and are admired by a mass audience. That thin line often tread in situations like this between homage and plagiarism isn't quite so thin anymore and mainly follows the homage path. Burton's style also sheds new light on Wonderland or casts a larger shadow on it depending on how you look at it. Beheadings are common, the monsters like the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky are gruesome, and the Dormouse has a thing about stabbing creatures in the eye. It's like if Lewis Carroll's vision met a bizarro, cracked out, Grimm's Fairy Tale version of itself.
The bizarre thing is that the secondary characters seem to be more interesting than the primary ones. I found myself drawn to characters like the Dodo Bird, the White Rabbit, the March Hare, the Cheshire Cat, the Executioner, the Red Queen's knights, and the Jabberwocky more than say Alice or the White Queen. That could be due to the fact that I'm drawn to the peculiar and I'm also an aficionado of the ridiculous. However, some characters seemed to be lacking interest (The White Queen) or enthusiasm (Alice) while secondary characters would fill that gap, so it seemed to balance out in the end.
I loved nearly everything about the film ranging from the Red Queen's outlandish reign to Johnny Depp's portrayal of The Mad Hatter to Tim Burton's version of Wonderland itself. Even Crispin Glover's role as the Knave of Hearts was exceptional. There are a few things about the film that didn't sit well with me or that seemed questionable. The addition of Bayard the Bloodhound being one of them. The addition isn't necessarily bad as the character gains sympathy from the audience rather effortlessly, but the character just didn't seem essential to the story like the other characters were. Maybe it's because it's a character Lewis Carroll didn't create. It wound up being something that wasn't good or bad, but leaves you scratching your head a bit. Alice rode Bayard across Wonderland. If you were going to introduce a character into an oddball world, wouldn't something more odd be the answer? Something like an ostrich or a roadrunner? What didn't sit well with me about the film can be summed up with one four syllable word; futterwhacken. What the hell was that? It was like if Regan from The Exorcist decided to start river dancing during a rather serious seizure. The concept wasn't a bad one, but its execution should have been something completely different.
I'm not sure if it was just the theater I was in or what, but it was hard to understand the characters at times. The Mad Hatter and the tea party scene, especially. Every other character was perfectly audible, the music was booming, and the battle scenes were exceptionally loud. The Mad Hatter's mumbling and the March Hare's ramblings are just hard to understand, which is unfortunate as they're two of the things you'll want to hear the most.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frame-for-frame Burton's ghastly version of the tale everyone knows and loves. While his particular vision may appear to not be for everyone on the surface, if you're a fan of Burton's previous work, Johnny Depp, the original Alice in Wonderland, or even all three, then it's safe to say you're more than likely going to love this adaptation.
As a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, I was seriously looking forward to this. The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, whether you love it or hate it, has resulted in some fairly creative and successful works. At this point in his career, it's fairly easy to spot something that Tim Burton has done. Like most directors, he has a specific style and Burton's seems to revolve around things that are dark, grisly, and bizarre all rolled into one. So how would Burton's wonderfully grotesque style mesh with Lewis Carroll's delightfully imaginative Alice and her trip to Wonderland? To be blunt, beautifully.
The way Burton went about the subject matter is probably the best way to go. It's an original tale with characters that are already well-established and are admired by a mass audience. That thin line often tread in situations like this between homage and plagiarism isn't quite so thin anymore and mainly follows the homage path. Burton's style also sheds new light on Wonderland or casts a larger shadow on it depending on how you look at it. Beheadings are common, the monsters like the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky are gruesome, and the Dormouse has a thing about stabbing creatures in the eye. It's like if Lewis Carroll's vision met a bizarro, cracked out, Grimm's Fairy Tale version of itself.
The bizarre thing is that the secondary characters seem to be more interesting than the primary ones. I found myself drawn to characters like the Dodo Bird, the White Rabbit, the March Hare, the Cheshire Cat, the Executioner, the Red Queen's knights, and the Jabberwocky more than say Alice or the White Queen. That could be due to the fact that I'm drawn to the peculiar and I'm also an aficionado of the ridiculous. However, some characters seemed to be lacking interest (The White Queen) or enthusiasm (Alice) while secondary characters would fill that gap, so it seemed to balance out in the end.
I loved nearly everything about the film ranging from the Red Queen's outlandish reign to Johnny Depp's portrayal of The Mad Hatter to Tim Burton's version of Wonderland itself. Even Crispin Glover's role as the Knave of Hearts was exceptional. There are a few things about the film that didn't sit well with me or that seemed questionable. The addition of Bayard the Bloodhound being one of them. The addition isn't necessarily bad as the character gains sympathy from the audience rather effortlessly, but the character just didn't seem essential to the story like the other characters were. Maybe it's because it's a character Lewis Carroll didn't create. It wound up being something that wasn't good or bad, but leaves you scratching your head a bit. Alice rode Bayard across Wonderland. If you were going to introduce a character into an oddball world, wouldn't something more odd be the answer? Something like an ostrich or a roadrunner? What didn't sit well with me about the film can be summed up with one four syllable word; futterwhacken. What the hell was that? It was like if Regan from The Exorcist decided to start river dancing during a rather serious seizure. The concept wasn't a bad one, but its execution should have been something completely different.
I'm not sure if it was just the theater I was in or what, but it was hard to understand the characters at times. The Mad Hatter and the tea party scene, especially. Every other character was perfectly audible, the music was booming, and the battle scenes were exceptionally loud. The Mad Hatter's mumbling and the March Hare's ramblings are just hard to understand, which is unfortunate as they're two of the things you'll want to hear the most.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frame-for-frame Burton's ghastly version of the tale everyone knows and loves. While his particular vision may appear to not be for everyone on the surface, if you're a fan of Burton's previous work, Johnny Depp, the original Alice in Wonderland, or even all three, then it's safe to say you're more than likely going to love this adaptation.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Town That Dreaded Sundown (2014) in Movies
Nov 23, 2019
Verdict: Slasher 101
Story: The Town That Dreaded Sundown starts when Jami (Timlin) and her boyfriend Corey (Clark) are attending the drive-in-movie-theatre showing the movie based on the real murders set in Texarkana 65-years-ago, moving to lover’s lane the killer known as The Phantom catches them, murdering Corey, leaving Jami with a message and the town is thrown back into fear again.
When the Phantom strikes again, he leaves Jami with a warning that he stop until she gives up her own secret, with the town bringing in the Texas Rangers Lone Wolf Morales (Anderson) to hunt down the before more people are murdered, is this the original killer returning or a copycat.
Thoughts on The Town That Dreaded Sundown
Characters – Jami breaks the mould of the final girl, she is a survivor of the first attack being left with a message of trying to find Mary. Jami starts looking into the history of the town going in search of what happened 65 years ago, needing to decide about her own future in the town or going off to college. Jami isn’t a teenager that is going to be running, she is almost like the messenger for the killer. Lillian is the grandmother of Jami, she has raised her after her parent’s death, she wants what is best for her even though she might know something about the past. Lone Wolf Morales is a Texas Ranger that has come to the town in search of the answers, he has taken complete control of the investigation and will listen to any story which might uncover the truth about what is happening. Nick is the former classmate of Jami’s he works in the achieves where he helps Jami learn about the history of the town becoming a new love interest for her.
Performances – Addison Timlin in the leading role makes for a great scream figure, while not just looking like a victim. Anthony Anderson does seem to bring a little bit of humour to the film, while the rest of the cast don’t put a foot wrong.
Story – The story here follows a town which suffered from a serial killer spree 65-years ago, a film which bought back the memories and now a new killer has arrived killing mindlessly through town. This story might follow elements of the traditional stalker killer, which for the most part is an easy watch, when it jumps out to the next level of being a meta sequel, while also taking the story in a new direction, we get a nice mix of the three, with the idea that this is based on an unsolved murder spree, a reality check on a film that is about those murders and a potential copycat or supernatural killer, we are kept guessing. The story however is filled with weaknesses because we did get hints of people that would have been involved and they just seem to drop the potential of us having suspects, while the killer reveal is also largely disappointing by the end. This story does make us feel like we are watching a more serious version of Scream with how the world is created around us.
Horror/Mystery – The horror is a blood soaked slasher style, we get plenty of rules being broken for that genre too, with Jami not being killed in the opening attack, we also get to see how the killer isn’t slow and is predatory at times, with the mystery being around who the killer could be and why they have targeted certain people through the film.
Settings – The film is set in a small town on the border of two states, this means we get the police arguing over who should lead the case, as well as being in a place with a history of a serial killer.
Special Effects – When it comes to the effects, we know we are going to get plenty of blood with the kills that aren’t as bloody as they could have been, but show the brutality of the kill.
Scene of the Movie – The aerial field shot.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The killer reveal is weak.
Final Thoughts – This is a slasher that is a joy to watch because it turns the rules of the genre on its head, even if the final reveal is the weak point of the film.
Overall: Slasher to Admire.
Story: The Town That Dreaded Sundown starts when Jami (Timlin) and her boyfriend Corey (Clark) are attending the drive-in-movie-theatre showing the movie based on the real murders set in Texarkana 65-years-ago, moving to lover’s lane the killer known as The Phantom catches them, murdering Corey, leaving Jami with a message and the town is thrown back into fear again.
When the Phantom strikes again, he leaves Jami with a warning that he stop until she gives up her own secret, with the town bringing in the Texas Rangers Lone Wolf Morales (Anderson) to hunt down the before more people are murdered, is this the original killer returning or a copycat.
Thoughts on The Town That Dreaded Sundown
Characters – Jami breaks the mould of the final girl, she is a survivor of the first attack being left with a message of trying to find Mary. Jami starts looking into the history of the town going in search of what happened 65 years ago, needing to decide about her own future in the town or going off to college. Jami isn’t a teenager that is going to be running, she is almost like the messenger for the killer. Lillian is the grandmother of Jami, she has raised her after her parent’s death, she wants what is best for her even though she might know something about the past. Lone Wolf Morales is a Texas Ranger that has come to the town in search of the answers, he has taken complete control of the investigation and will listen to any story which might uncover the truth about what is happening. Nick is the former classmate of Jami’s he works in the achieves where he helps Jami learn about the history of the town becoming a new love interest for her.
Performances – Addison Timlin in the leading role makes for a great scream figure, while not just looking like a victim. Anthony Anderson does seem to bring a little bit of humour to the film, while the rest of the cast don’t put a foot wrong.
Story – The story here follows a town which suffered from a serial killer spree 65-years ago, a film which bought back the memories and now a new killer has arrived killing mindlessly through town. This story might follow elements of the traditional stalker killer, which for the most part is an easy watch, when it jumps out to the next level of being a meta sequel, while also taking the story in a new direction, we get a nice mix of the three, with the idea that this is based on an unsolved murder spree, a reality check on a film that is about those murders and a potential copycat or supernatural killer, we are kept guessing. The story however is filled with weaknesses because we did get hints of people that would have been involved and they just seem to drop the potential of us having suspects, while the killer reveal is also largely disappointing by the end. This story does make us feel like we are watching a more serious version of Scream with how the world is created around us.
Horror/Mystery – The horror is a blood soaked slasher style, we get plenty of rules being broken for that genre too, with Jami not being killed in the opening attack, we also get to see how the killer isn’t slow and is predatory at times, with the mystery being around who the killer could be and why they have targeted certain people through the film.
Settings – The film is set in a small town on the border of two states, this means we get the police arguing over who should lead the case, as well as being in a place with a history of a serial killer.
Special Effects – When it comes to the effects, we know we are going to get plenty of blood with the kills that aren’t as bloody as they could have been, but show the brutality of the kill.
Scene of the Movie – The aerial field shot.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The killer reveal is weak.
Final Thoughts – This is a slasher that is a joy to watch because it turns the rules of the genre on its head, even if the final reveal is the weak point of the film.
Overall: Slasher to Admire.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Dec 19, 2018 (Updated Dec 19, 2018)
A wonderful movie
I have been really looking forward to seeing this movie. I, along with countless millions around the world, have fond memories of watching regular re-runs of Laurel & Hardy movies on TV, and they hold a very special place in so many people's hearts. Timeless legends that deserve to be remembered for generations to come. That being said, the preview screening I attended last night was probably only a quarter full, so I fear that this story detailing the latter part of their career isn't really going to appeal to mainstream audiences. I kind of hope it reignites interest in their work though as this truly is a wonderful film.
The movie begins in 1937, where Stan and Ollie are currently riding high as the most successful comedy performers in Hollywood. They're at Hal Roach studios, making their way to the set of Way Out West in order to shoot another scene. They're just chatting away together as we follow them - about their wives, about money. Stan's contract with Hal Roach is due to end shortly, while Ollie's isn't, and Stan is conscious of the fact that they don't actually own the rights to their own movies, so don't make as much money as performers such as Charlie Chaplin. He argues a bit with Hal Roach about it, before he and Ollie perform a song and dance number for the movie (the original clip of this scene is shown at the end of this movie, highlighting just how perfectly they nailed the recreation of it here). That short conversation, and the differing viewpoints regarding money and their film rights, lays the foundations for the rest of the movie, and we then jump forward 16 years.
The boys arrive in Newcastle, England in 1953. They're here to perform a tour of the UK, recreating classic scenes from their movies in an attempt to generate enough interest in them to get a movie made. A retelling of Robin Hood, which is being written by Stan. Age is clearly catching up with them though, particularly with Ollie, while Stan remains the driving force of the pair, constantly performing classic gags and coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately for them, they barely manage to fill half the seats of the theatres they perform in, with concern growing as to whether or not their eventual London dates will even go ahead. Their wives are due to join them on tour in a couple of weeks time, and they're also concerned as to what they'll make of it all when they arrive, especially as the boys are currently only staying in small, simple guest houses. Promoter Bernard Delfont (one of the movies funniest supporting roles) is keen to get them out and about promoting themselves, attending events and meeting dignitaries. His interests initially seem focused elsewhere in the theatre business, particularly with upcoming British comedy performer Norman Wisdom, so it's hard work generating interest in Laurel & Hardy once more. Luckily though, the effort pays off, and they eventually upgrade their London show to a bigger theatre, selling it out.
John C Reilly and Steve Coogan are just perfect as Stan and Ollie. I struggled a little at times with Steve Coogan, as I've been a big fan of his varied comedy work for nearly 30 years now, so found it a bit distracting. But he definitely pulls this off, and it's incredible to see so many mannerisms and iconic scenes from their movies so perfectly reproduced by both leads. The other outstanding and hilarious double act in this movie are the wives, who arrive in London to support their husbands and mix things up a little. They are clearly very caring and protective of their husbands though, supporting them through ill health, and an unfortunate falling out between Stan and Ollie related to events that occurred 16 years ago. A pivotal moment in their careers which was alluded to in the opening scenes of the movie, and further elaborated on in a number of flashbacks later on. It's a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but overall this is a wonderfully heartwarming and moving love story about two of Hollywoods greatest. And it succeeded in making me want to watch every single one of their movies again.
The movie begins in 1937, where Stan and Ollie are currently riding high as the most successful comedy performers in Hollywood. They're at Hal Roach studios, making their way to the set of Way Out West in order to shoot another scene. They're just chatting away together as we follow them - about their wives, about money. Stan's contract with Hal Roach is due to end shortly, while Ollie's isn't, and Stan is conscious of the fact that they don't actually own the rights to their own movies, so don't make as much money as performers such as Charlie Chaplin. He argues a bit with Hal Roach about it, before he and Ollie perform a song and dance number for the movie (the original clip of this scene is shown at the end of this movie, highlighting just how perfectly they nailed the recreation of it here). That short conversation, and the differing viewpoints regarding money and their film rights, lays the foundations for the rest of the movie, and we then jump forward 16 years.
The boys arrive in Newcastle, England in 1953. They're here to perform a tour of the UK, recreating classic scenes from their movies in an attempt to generate enough interest in them to get a movie made. A retelling of Robin Hood, which is being written by Stan. Age is clearly catching up with them though, particularly with Ollie, while Stan remains the driving force of the pair, constantly performing classic gags and coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately for them, they barely manage to fill half the seats of the theatres they perform in, with concern growing as to whether or not their eventual London dates will even go ahead. Their wives are due to join them on tour in a couple of weeks time, and they're also concerned as to what they'll make of it all when they arrive, especially as the boys are currently only staying in small, simple guest houses. Promoter Bernard Delfont (one of the movies funniest supporting roles) is keen to get them out and about promoting themselves, attending events and meeting dignitaries. His interests initially seem focused elsewhere in the theatre business, particularly with upcoming British comedy performer Norman Wisdom, so it's hard work generating interest in Laurel & Hardy once more. Luckily though, the effort pays off, and they eventually upgrade their London show to a bigger theatre, selling it out.
John C Reilly and Steve Coogan are just perfect as Stan and Ollie. I struggled a little at times with Steve Coogan, as I've been a big fan of his varied comedy work for nearly 30 years now, so found it a bit distracting. But he definitely pulls this off, and it's incredible to see so many mannerisms and iconic scenes from their movies so perfectly reproduced by both leads. The other outstanding and hilarious double act in this movie are the wives, who arrive in London to support their husbands and mix things up a little. They are clearly very caring and protective of their husbands though, supporting them through ill health, and an unfortunate falling out between Stan and Ollie related to events that occurred 16 years ago. A pivotal moment in their careers which was alluded to in the opening scenes of the movie, and further elaborated on in a number of flashbacks later on. It's a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but overall this is a wonderfully heartwarming and moving love story about two of Hollywoods greatest. And it succeeded in making me want to watch every single one of their movies again.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Little Nightmares II in Video Games
Apr 9, 2021
The incredible story. (3 more)
Great visuals and interactions with items both in the foreground and background.
Brilliant score.
Its gameplay and controls are mostly entertaining.
Some puzzles are difficult to solve without cheating. (2 more)
It is ridiculously difficult at times. Expect to die. A lot.
It is longer than the first game, but still feels short.
A Visually Creepy Masterpiece with a few Minor Flaws
Little Nightmares II is a vast improvement over the original game that still has a few flaws that could be ironed out in a sequel. The first game was creepy and a lot of fun, but it felt incredibly short. It was the type of game you bought, played through quickly, and traded in because it didn’t seem to have much replay value. Although I'm just now reading about the DLC for the game and the hidden ending to Little Nightmares II, but I digress.
Little Nightmares II has you playing as Mono, a young boy that wears a paper bag over his head; not unlike Ugly Bob from the Terrance & Phillip In Not Without My Anus on the first episode of the second season of South Park. The game is a lot like Limbo with more color. Mono is thrown into a world of bleak surroundings and even darker outcomes. Thankfully, you have Six from the previous game to assist you. However, Little Nightmares II is only one player which seems like a missed opportunity for this to be a two player game.
The format of each level is pretty similar other than the last one. You typically flee a major boss character that chases you while you search for the key to a locked door. Stealth is involved throughout the game. If you make too much noise, run too fast, or walk into the light from the shadows in view of a boss’s eyesight then you get eaten or killed. You use your surroundings to thwart the boss, which usually involves killing them yourself. The chase element is the same near the end of the game, but you're thrown into more surreal and dreamlike surroundings.
It does seem like you interact more with the background in comparison to the previous game. You can almost always run into the background on any level. It may result in you falling off a cliff, but that kind of exploration ability in a side-scroller is really cool. I played Little Nightmares II on a PS5 despite the game being for PS4. What’s cool is you can feel Mono’s heartbeat through the controller when situations are tense and seeing little dust particles float through the air as you explore is a nice addition.
The highlight of the game is the story. The world Little Nightmares and Little Nightmares II takes place in is so deliciously dreary with what feels like no hope for survival. You root for Mono and Six to stay together as friends, but that outcome seems less and less likely as the game progresses. You also gain powers as Mono later on; the most noteworthy one being able to use televisions as portals. All of the major bosses are fantastically terrifying, as well. You’re chased by a hunter with a shotgun, a teacher with a stretchy neck and an appetite, twitchy mannequins that only move in darkness, viewers obsessed with television, and The Thin Man who kidnaps Six.
The game can be frustrating at times. Not only is it difficult and will result in you dying over and over again, but certain puzzles are almost impossible to solve without looking up how to solve them first.
According to the internet, it seems as though this may be the end of the Little Nightmares franchise since the creators are moving on to something new and will focus less on sequels in the future. It’s unfortunate since Dave Mervik’s writing with the story of the game is so well done and the game as a whole is mostly very fun and entertaining to play while providing legitimate thrills and chills. Tobias Lilja’s musical score is a frightening delight. However, despite Little Nightmare II’s flaws, it’ll be impossible not to be invested in anything Tarsier Studios is involved with in the years to come.
Little Nightmares II has you playing as Mono, a young boy that wears a paper bag over his head; not unlike Ugly Bob from the Terrance & Phillip In Not Without My Anus on the first episode of the second season of South Park. The game is a lot like Limbo with more color. Mono is thrown into a world of bleak surroundings and even darker outcomes. Thankfully, you have Six from the previous game to assist you. However, Little Nightmares II is only one player which seems like a missed opportunity for this to be a two player game.
The format of each level is pretty similar other than the last one. You typically flee a major boss character that chases you while you search for the key to a locked door. Stealth is involved throughout the game. If you make too much noise, run too fast, or walk into the light from the shadows in view of a boss’s eyesight then you get eaten or killed. You use your surroundings to thwart the boss, which usually involves killing them yourself. The chase element is the same near the end of the game, but you're thrown into more surreal and dreamlike surroundings.
It does seem like you interact more with the background in comparison to the previous game. You can almost always run into the background on any level. It may result in you falling off a cliff, but that kind of exploration ability in a side-scroller is really cool. I played Little Nightmares II on a PS5 despite the game being for PS4. What’s cool is you can feel Mono’s heartbeat through the controller when situations are tense and seeing little dust particles float through the air as you explore is a nice addition.
The highlight of the game is the story. The world Little Nightmares and Little Nightmares II takes place in is so deliciously dreary with what feels like no hope for survival. You root for Mono and Six to stay together as friends, but that outcome seems less and less likely as the game progresses. You also gain powers as Mono later on; the most noteworthy one being able to use televisions as portals. All of the major bosses are fantastically terrifying, as well. You’re chased by a hunter with a shotgun, a teacher with a stretchy neck and an appetite, twitchy mannequins that only move in darkness, viewers obsessed with television, and The Thin Man who kidnaps Six.
The game can be frustrating at times. Not only is it difficult and will result in you dying over and over again, but certain puzzles are almost impossible to solve without looking up how to solve them first.
According to the internet, it seems as though this may be the end of the Little Nightmares franchise since the creators are moving on to something new and will focus less on sequels in the future. It’s unfortunate since Dave Mervik’s writing with the story of the game is so well done and the game as a whole is mostly very fun and entertaining to play while providing legitimate thrills and chills. Tobias Lilja’s musical score is a frightening delight. However, despite Little Nightmare II’s flaws, it’ll be impossible not to be invested in anything Tarsier Studios is involved with in the years to come.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Godzilla's gigantic scale is impressive. (1 more)
Bryan Cranston gives a terrific performance.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a horribly lifeless protagonist. (2 more)
The film repeatedly obscures our chances to see Godzilla or cuts away from him completely.
There seems to be very little sense of panic or concern despite Godzilla and MUTO's destruction.
As promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 version.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the original Godzilla film, when the King of the Monsters first emerged from the Pacific and terrorized Tokyo, Japan. Roughly 10 years after America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II, Godzilla was artistically created to be a physical, living representation of the destructive force of those bombs. Even the texture of his skin is modelled after keloid scars, which were found on survivors as a result of the radiation. Godzilla’s arrival and subsequent attacks were spurred by the use of nuclear weapons, and he as a character wholly embodies the consequences of nuclear warfare.
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
60 years later, Godzilla remains a global icon, having spawned dozens of movie sequels, while introducing several other enormous monsters to battle with. Then 16 years ago, he was reimagined as he first came to America in Roland Emmerich’s lackluster 1998 film Godzilla, leaving many fans severely disappointed with not only the film, but also the new rendition of the famous monster. While Godzilla is visually depicted much more accurately in Gareth Edward’s new 2014 Godzilla than he was in ’98, his entire presence is surprisingly different than usual. This isn’t the angry, vengeful Godzilla of the past. He actually now seems almost entirely indifferent to humans. Unfortunately, as promising as this new Godzilla movie may appear to be, it falls far short of expectations, and dare I say, it isn’t even much better than the 1998 Godzilla.
Godzilla (2014) starts off pretty well, strengthened by the performance of Bryan Cranston, who plays Joe Brody, a nuclear power plant engineer living in Japan. Brody is present when an unknown disaster occurs at the plant, costing many innocent lives. Despite what the trailers suggest, Cranston’s Brody is not the main character of the film. Nor is it fellow all-star actor Ken Watanabe. The main character is actually only seen for about 4 seconds of the film’s original 2 and a half minute trailer. It’s Joe Brody’s son, Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, in a performance that is decent but far from engaging. The protagonist Ford Brody is a character that is largely uninteresting, and who just casually wants to get back to his family after the monster invasion. He fails to convey any genuine sense of urgency amidst the chaos, although the same can be said for the entire cast, with the exception of Cranston’s Brody. Cranston’s performance is the only one that has any emotional weight to it, but he can’t carry the film alone. Meanwhile, Ken Watanabe is essentially reduced to being the quiet, ever-present voice of reason that no one wants to listen to. The film has a solid cast of actors, but they’re not given enough to work with in this convoluted mess of a movie.
For a movie that has so much death and destruction, the people in the film never seem all that concerned. You get no sense of global panic and hysteria. You have a 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities, with millions of people dying, and yet nobody seems all that freaked out by it. It’s almost like the situation isn’t treated as a serious threat, and there’s a major lack of suspense altogether. There’s rarely any edge-of-your-seat terror or excitement, and the lack of emotion just makes the action come off as sort of flat and dull. Not only that, the majority of the destruction that’s taking place isn’t even seen, with the movie instead opting to show you the aftermath. Throughout the first two-thirds of the movie, the camera continuously cuts away from the action you’ve been waiting for. Rather than showing you what you want to see in full-glory, the movie frequently will take you to a different location where you’ll briefly see a few seconds of the catastrophe being watched by someone on television. It feels like a cheap trick to build up to some amazing climax, but it’s incredibly frustrating. It’s like when watching a reality TV show and then the show cuts to a commercial break before revealing the winner. Perhaps it would be more forgivable if the end was enjoyable, but even though it does give you a full display of the showdown, it’s bogged down by a tiresome human story and still lacks any real emotional punch. Despite the fact that the movie tries to convey a serious tone, it’s also incredibly cheesy. To the extent that the big finale that this movie has been trying so hard to build up to ends up being almost laughable. Ultimately the movie ends up just being unsatisfying, disappointing, and overly long.
There are a lot of ways in which Godzilla goes wrong, despite the film’s great potential. One of my issues is with the musical score, which ends up coming off like a bad punchline. Music is supposed to accentuate the action and drama of a film, yet the film feels emotionless and boring. The only time the music really stood out to me was when it was being used to heighten the suspense of the climactic battle, and essentially narrate who was winning. It was done so ineffectively that it was both kind of comical and embarrassing. I also have an issue with all of the special effects, which are being touted as absolutely amazing. They’re not. However, I will say that the use of special effects in the movie is quite ambitious, but it works to the film’s detriment. There’s simply too much of them, and this excessive nature of the film is, I think, its biggest mistake. Godzilla (2014) is ridiculously CGI-heavy, and while their scope is admirable, I really think the quality would have been substantially improved if they didn’t overdo it so much. I think a less-is-more approach would have benefited the film in many ways. It’s excessive to the point of making good things turn bad. Everything is way too over the top, causing the action to lose its impact. It’s evident the filmmakers were trying so hard to make this big-budget movie as epic as possible, but this enormous scale ends up backfiring. The rampage covers two continents, multiple cities, and even traverses the length of the Pacific Ocean. I can appreciate their attempt, but the movie is trying to do too much. In other words, Godzilla (2014) bites off more than it can chew.
I also have some problems with the film’s treatment of the titular character, Godzilla. First of all, for a movie named after him, he sure doesn’t appear much in it. He’s the reason why we want to see the movie, but he’s absent for the majority of the film. Even when he’s around, he’s largely obscured by CGI smoke and storm clouds, up until the final moments of the movie. I’m also not particularly fond of his appearance. He just doesn’t quite look like Godzilla to me. It’s like looking at a T-Rex head on Godzilla’s body. I’m aware that Godzilla’s facial appearance has changed many times over 60 years, but something just doesn’t look quite right here. Additionally, I feel that Godzilla’s face is actually too expressive in this new film. I wonder if this was done to cause viewers to feel more sympathetic to him, because in the film, Godzilla is actually depicted as something of a tragic hero, rather than a colossal beast. This is my biggest concern with the movie’s handling of his character. Godzilla’s destruction in the film is treated like it’s all unintentional, and just a result of his massive size. Even though humans attack him, he’s not angry about it or anything. Never mind the movie’s claim that all of America’s nuclear bomb tests after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually secretive but unsuccessful attempts to kill Godzilla. He doesn’t mind. He’s just a poor gentle giant that’s misunderstood. Really, Hollywood? Give me a break!
To say that Godzilla (2014) is almost as bad of a film as Godzilla (1998) is a statement that I don’t take lightly. It’s a bold and controversial thing to say, and it may seem a bit absurd considering that this film goes in the right direction, whereas the previous film was all wrong from the beginning. Yet while the new movie has all the right pieces for greatness, it extends its reach too far and attempts to do too much, while never managing to make any of it very good. In all seriousness, I was more entertained with the ’98 film than I was with this one. I can hardly comprehend how a movie with a giant 300-foot-tall monster destroying cities can be so boring. Godzilla (2014) focuses so much on trying to build up to an epic conclusion that it forgets to worry about making the audience care, or even about keeping them entertained, and it just gets worse as it goes on. It repeatedly tries to raise the stakes, as well as our expectations, while attempting to delay gratification until the end. It’s a risky move, and unsurprisingly, it certainly doesn’t pay off. On the bright side, Godzilla (2014) is probably a pretty sweet movie if you’re a 12-year-old. There’s plenty of action, some cool special effects, and he’s still a pretty awesome monster. However, for me, I was totally pumped up for this movie, but an hour and a half into it, I had endured enough and wanted to walk out. Godzilla (2014) disappointed me on so many levels. It’s a movie without a beating heart. It’s predictable, overly long, has uninspired characters and a weak story, and the action just never hits the right note. A little more emotion and a little less CGI could have a gone a long way in making this movie better. As a fan of Godzilla, I felt frustrated, detached, and perplexed with how they were able to do so much wrong when they had the groundwork for something great. You know, perhaps I’m wrong in claiming it’s comparably bad as Godzilla (1998). After all, the last time I saw that movie was in the theaters when I was 12.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.17.14.)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pixels (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the off switch
When was the last time you went to the cinema to see something original? It’s probably a question a lot of film fans ask themselves and in the last few years, perhaps proved rather difficult to answer.
However, with 2015 being the year of the reboot and the sequel, it’s nice to see a film like Pixels showcasing something completely different. But is it worth a go?
Directed by Chris Columbus of Mrs. Doubtfire and Harry Potter fame, Pixels stars Adam Sandler, Josh Gad, Peter Dinklage and a woefully miscast Kevin James in a film that doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise, descending into painfully unfunny slapstick instead.
Sandler stars as Sam Brenner, a video game lover who, after a brief scene showing his history, is tasked with saving the world as aliens infiltrate Earth and begin to attack using some of our most-loved classic arcade games.
Alongside him for the ride are fellow video-game champs Josh Gad (Frozen), Peter Dinklage (X:Men – Days of Future Past) and Kevin James (Paul Blart: Mall Cop). The latter also happens to play the US President.
Unfortunately, none of the cast are particularly likeable with the usually on-point James playing one of the worst Presidential roles ever put to film. He is simply unbelievable as the leader of the United States and provides Pixels with some of its more cringe-worthy moments.
Once the film gets going, there are a few standout moments including a Pac-Man rampage through New York City but this has been so heavily marketed in the trailers that there is practically no suspense or joy in watching it unfold.
The finale is also very good, with a Donkey Kong showdown rendered in some stunning CGI and ridiculously clever set building and it’s great fun seeing so many classic arcade games being brought to life on the big screen.
Pac-Man, Q*Bert , Centipede and Donkey Kong are just a few to appear and look glorious with their 21st Century upgrades. Q*Bert in particular is a little cutie and is a major character throughout the last third of the film.
It’s unfortunate then that Chris Columbus’ usually reliable direction takes such a knock here. There’s none of the clever generation-bending humour of Mrs. Doubtfire or the laugh-out-loud slapstick of Home Alone, and the visual style he brought to Harry Potter is nowhere to be seen. In the end, Pixels just comes across as a brilliant concept that seems wasted.
Perhaps this can be blamed somewhat on poor casting choices. Adam Sandler hasn’t been hot property for a while after numerous box-office bombs and Peter Dinklage is still establishing himself as a major movie star. With Kevin James also proving a disappointment, it’s only Josh Gad who comes out on top – just.
Ultimately, Pixels is fun while it lasts and has some absolutely brilliant set pieces but once the credits roll, it’s apparent that it won’t be memorable like the wonderful arcade games it parodies.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/16/wheres-the-start-button-pixels-review/
However, with 2015 being the year of the reboot and the sequel, it’s nice to see a film like Pixels showcasing something completely different. But is it worth a go?
Directed by Chris Columbus of Mrs. Doubtfire and Harry Potter fame, Pixels stars Adam Sandler, Josh Gad, Peter Dinklage and a woefully miscast Kevin James in a film that doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise, descending into painfully unfunny slapstick instead.
Sandler stars as Sam Brenner, a video game lover who, after a brief scene showing his history, is tasked with saving the world as aliens infiltrate Earth and begin to attack using some of our most-loved classic arcade games.
Alongside him for the ride are fellow video-game champs Josh Gad (Frozen), Peter Dinklage (X:Men – Days of Future Past) and Kevin James (Paul Blart: Mall Cop). The latter also happens to play the US President.
Unfortunately, none of the cast are particularly likeable with the usually on-point James playing one of the worst Presidential roles ever put to film. He is simply unbelievable as the leader of the United States and provides Pixels with some of its more cringe-worthy moments.
Once the film gets going, there are a few standout moments including a Pac-Man rampage through New York City but this has been so heavily marketed in the trailers that there is practically no suspense or joy in watching it unfold.
The finale is also very good, with a Donkey Kong showdown rendered in some stunning CGI and ridiculously clever set building and it’s great fun seeing so many classic arcade games being brought to life on the big screen.
Pac-Man, Q*Bert , Centipede and Donkey Kong are just a few to appear and look glorious with their 21st Century upgrades. Q*Bert in particular is a little cutie and is a major character throughout the last third of the film.
It’s unfortunate then that Chris Columbus’ usually reliable direction takes such a knock here. There’s none of the clever generation-bending humour of Mrs. Doubtfire or the laugh-out-loud slapstick of Home Alone, and the visual style he brought to Harry Potter is nowhere to be seen. In the end, Pixels just comes across as a brilliant concept that seems wasted.
Perhaps this can be blamed somewhat on poor casting choices. Adam Sandler hasn’t been hot property for a while after numerous box-office bombs and Peter Dinklage is still establishing himself as a major movie star. With Kevin James also proving a disappointment, it’s only Josh Gad who comes out on top – just.
Ultimately, Pixels is fun while it lasts and has some absolutely brilliant set pieces but once the credits roll, it’s apparent that it won’t be memorable like the wonderful arcade games it parodies.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/16/wheres-the-start-button-pixels-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Our Little Secret in Books
Apr 12, 2018
Excellent, well-written suspense novel from debut author
"All love stories are crime stories and all crime stories, love. If you say that's not true, you're not looking properly. Perhaps when two people join, it's inevitable, the things they'll damage in each other." ~Angela to Novak*
Angela is being held for interrogation at the police station. Detective Novak wants only thing from her--to know where Saskia is. But Angela cannot comply; instead, she tells Detective Novak a story, one starting with her senior year, when she fell in love with a boy named HP. As she tells her tale, it becomes clear it is one of love, sadness, betrayal, and anger. Does Angela know where Saskia is? And can we trust her?
This was a really fascinating and different book, and it was so refreshing to read something that felt original and unlike so many of the suspense novels I've read lately. I will say upfront: Nay is an excellent storyteller, and I found this novel to be wonderfully written. Parts of this story actually hurt me to read, because it was so vividly told. I could so clearly picture the events unfolding and visualize this tale of teen love gone wrong.
I loved the idea that our entire book is Angela, trapped at the police station, telling the story of the last several years of her life to Detective Novak. It seems unconventional, and it is, but it worked well for me. It took the unreliable narrator trope to a different level, and it was so much better than the drunken, rambling, angry unreliable narrator that we see so often. Angela tells her tale of woe and bitterness to the Detective, with only minor interruptions as he provides some pieces of new evidence that occasionally cast doubt upon her viewpoints. As such, we are left to guess how truthful she is being with all of us. Every statement she makes is charged with double meaning. I found the entire thing to be incredibly compelling and oddly fascinating. I was completely hooked, madly flipping the pages to find out what happened next. Even more, I was amazed at how Nay created sympathy toward a character who wasn't all that likeable at times. I was rooting for her, even when I knew I probably shouldn't.
I felt this faltered only a little near the end, where I wasn't quite sure I was on board with everything, but it certainly wasn't enough to diminish my love of the novel. And the actual ending is excellent and basically redeemed it all. Overall, this was an excellent, well-written, suspenseful novel. Angela is a dynamic and complicated character who immediately draws you in with her narration. I was constantly second-guessing her as I read and found the entire novel to be incredibly powerful and satisfying. Apparently this is Nay's first book, which is even more impressive. Can't wait for the next one. Definitely worth a read! 4+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
*all quotes from an advanced reader copy and subject to change
Angela is being held for interrogation at the police station. Detective Novak wants only thing from her--to know where Saskia is. But Angela cannot comply; instead, she tells Detective Novak a story, one starting with her senior year, when she fell in love with a boy named HP. As she tells her tale, it becomes clear it is one of love, sadness, betrayal, and anger. Does Angela know where Saskia is? And can we trust her?
This was a really fascinating and different book, and it was so refreshing to read something that felt original and unlike so many of the suspense novels I've read lately. I will say upfront: Nay is an excellent storyteller, and I found this novel to be wonderfully written. Parts of this story actually hurt me to read, because it was so vividly told. I could so clearly picture the events unfolding and visualize this tale of teen love gone wrong.
I loved the idea that our entire book is Angela, trapped at the police station, telling the story of the last several years of her life to Detective Novak. It seems unconventional, and it is, but it worked well for me. It took the unreliable narrator trope to a different level, and it was so much better than the drunken, rambling, angry unreliable narrator that we see so often. Angela tells her tale of woe and bitterness to the Detective, with only minor interruptions as he provides some pieces of new evidence that occasionally cast doubt upon her viewpoints. As such, we are left to guess how truthful she is being with all of us. Every statement she makes is charged with double meaning. I found the entire thing to be incredibly compelling and oddly fascinating. I was completely hooked, madly flipping the pages to find out what happened next. Even more, I was amazed at how Nay created sympathy toward a character who wasn't all that likeable at times. I was rooting for her, even when I knew I probably shouldn't.
I felt this faltered only a little near the end, where I wasn't quite sure I was on board with everything, but it certainly wasn't enough to diminish my love of the novel. And the actual ending is excellent and basically redeemed it all. Overall, this was an excellent, well-written, suspenseful novel. Angela is a dynamic and complicated character who immediately draws you in with her narration. I was constantly second-guessing her as I read and found the entire novel to be incredibly powerful and satisfying. Apparently this is Nay's first book, which is even more impressive. Can't wait for the next one. Definitely worth a read! 4+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
*all quotes from an advanced reader copy and subject to change
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas (2011) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: The hijinks of this duo is always hilarious and this time is no different, getting themselves in all sorts of trouble as well as finding funny ways to get out of them. They always find colourful characters some seen before some new ones. It is all fun but not too serious and the story offers not too much more original than the first two. (7/10)
Actor Review: Kal Penn – The stoner friend who needs to learn to grow up and throughout the film he finally learns to. Continues to do a good job in the role showing he has some very good comic timing. (8/10)
kumar
Actor Review: John Cho – Has always been the more serious of the pairing and now has taken that too the next level. Just like Kal he is good again working to be more serious to his more laid back what will be role. Lesley’s Stud Muffin Award (8/10)
harold
Actor Review: Neil Patrick Harris – Always turns up as himself in these films and always steals the scene. This is no different making his character even funnier. Scene Stealer Award (9/10)
HPH
Actor Review: Danny Trejo – The disapproving father of Harold who starts out being very against Harold, but letting Harold prove he has what it takes to look after his daughter. Very much written for Trejo letting him poke fun at the characters he has created through the years. (8/10)
Actor Review: Amir Blumenfeld – Kumar’s friend who ends up taking everyone to a party helping leading to the mess the guys end up in. Good addition to the cast has some of the funnier scenes. (8/10)
Actor Review: Thomas Lennon – Has to look after his baby daughter and ends up in situations where the baby gets stoned by accident. They panic stricken character adds some many funny moments in this film. They Have the Laughs Award, Funniest Character Award (9/10)
Todd & Adrian with the stoned baby
Todd & Adrian with the stoned baby
Director Review: Todd Strauss-Schulson – This small time director steps up to create a good comedy. (8/10)
Comedy: Good comedy, very funny scenarios created. (8/10)
Special Effects: Pokes fun at the 3D era in the cinema with some funny special effects. (9/10)
Chemistry: Harold & Kumar have great chemistry throughout the film. (9/10)
Believability: I am sure some stoner have had some wild adventures not as wild as these guys but still similar. (6/10)
Chances of Tears: None (0/10)
Oscar Chances: NONE
Chances of Sequel: I am sure they have enough to make a sequel.
Suggestion: A comedy that should be enjoyed by all fans of the mature audience. If you like the first two you will like this one. If you want serious you are looking in the wrong place. (Enjoy The Trip)
Best Part: Clay doe scene.
clay
Kill Of The Film: By the waffle machine.
Funniest Scene: The stoned baby
Similar Too: Harold & Kumar’s previous adventures.
Overall: Outrageous comedy with plenty of laughs
Lesley’s Rating 60%
https://moviesreview101.com/2013/12/21/a-very-harold-kumar-3d-christmas-2011/
Actor Review: Kal Penn – The stoner friend who needs to learn to grow up and throughout the film he finally learns to. Continues to do a good job in the role showing he has some very good comic timing. (8/10)
kumar
Actor Review: John Cho – Has always been the more serious of the pairing and now has taken that too the next level. Just like Kal he is good again working to be more serious to his more laid back what will be role. Lesley’s Stud Muffin Award (8/10)
harold
Actor Review: Neil Patrick Harris – Always turns up as himself in these films and always steals the scene. This is no different making his character even funnier. Scene Stealer Award (9/10)
HPH
Actor Review: Danny Trejo – The disapproving father of Harold who starts out being very against Harold, but letting Harold prove he has what it takes to look after his daughter. Very much written for Trejo letting him poke fun at the characters he has created through the years. (8/10)
Actor Review: Amir Blumenfeld – Kumar’s friend who ends up taking everyone to a party helping leading to the mess the guys end up in. Good addition to the cast has some of the funnier scenes. (8/10)
Actor Review: Thomas Lennon – Has to look after his baby daughter and ends up in situations where the baby gets stoned by accident. They panic stricken character adds some many funny moments in this film. They Have the Laughs Award, Funniest Character Award (9/10)
Todd & Adrian with the stoned baby
Todd & Adrian with the stoned baby
Director Review: Todd Strauss-Schulson – This small time director steps up to create a good comedy. (8/10)
Comedy: Good comedy, very funny scenarios created. (8/10)
Special Effects: Pokes fun at the 3D era in the cinema with some funny special effects. (9/10)
Chemistry: Harold & Kumar have great chemistry throughout the film. (9/10)
Believability: I am sure some stoner have had some wild adventures not as wild as these guys but still similar. (6/10)
Chances of Tears: None (0/10)
Oscar Chances: NONE
Chances of Sequel: I am sure they have enough to make a sequel.
Suggestion: A comedy that should be enjoyed by all fans of the mature audience. If you like the first two you will like this one. If you want serious you are looking in the wrong place. (Enjoy The Trip)
Best Part: Clay doe scene.
clay
Kill Of The Film: By the waffle machine.
Funniest Scene: The stoned baby
Similar Too: Harold & Kumar’s previous adventures.
Overall: Outrageous comedy with plenty of laughs
Lesley’s Rating 60%
https://moviesreview101.com/2013/12/21/a-very-harold-kumar-3d-christmas-2011/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Unrest (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
For many medical school students the most daunting class they face early in their studies is that of Gross Anatomy. The class which introduces aspiring doctors to their first bodies, as well as the reality and complexity of the human anatomy is often seen as a make or break moment for the challenging studies that lay ahead.
In the film Unrest Writer/Director/Producer Jason Todd Ipson follows a group of new students in a Gross Anatomy class. At first the students are shocked by the disfigured cadaver in front of them, but soon begin the dissection they are required to do.
The appearance of the corpse they are working on becomes a source of fixation for one of the students named Allison (Corri English), who becomes convinced that something is not right with the body they are working on, as something tells her that things are not as they seem.
Allison’s concerns are dismissed as her being overwhelmed by her first encounter with a body, and she is told that her concerns will soon pass. Soon after, one of the dissection group is affected by a freak accident, and Allison becomes convinced that there are evil forces at work, and that nobody will be safe until the mystery behind the corpse is settled.
As the body count rises, Allison and her friend Brian (Scot Davis), face a race against the clock and the supernatural to find the cause of the unrest and make things right, before they end up the next victims of a vengeful specter.
Unrest is a very impressive debut for Ipson, who himself was a promising surgeon before turning his talents to directing. The film is well paced and has plenty of tension and suspense without resorting to the clichéd horror staples that have become all too common.
The plot is refreshingly original and deeper than most films in this genre attempt to achieve, as its complexity is deceiving simply. The film can be taken as a simple scare fest, but for those willing to look beneath the surface, there are deeper layers to the film that tackle areas such as the afterlife, intuition, possession, second sight, and the supernatural. While all of those have been covered before in various films, few have ever combined them in such an intelligent fashion that allows the audience to reach their own conclusions on the topics the film introduces.
The cast is solid especially Davis and English who take what could easily be stock characters and infuse a sense of purpose which helps the audience relate to them and their situation.
While the film might have what appears to some to be plot holes, the film is actually a clever examination of the spirit and afterlife, and delivers the goods. While much has been made about the alleged use of real body parts in the film, Ipson is careful not to let his film become a gratuitous gore fest and uses blood and carnage only in the amounts necessary to propel the story.
Unrest is a very solid effort that marks the emergence of a talent to be watched and will delight fans of the genre who want some intelligence with their horror.
In the film Unrest Writer/Director/Producer Jason Todd Ipson follows a group of new students in a Gross Anatomy class. At first the students are shocked by the disfigured cadaver in front of them, but soon begin the dissection they are required to do.
The appearance of the corpse they are working on becomes a source of fixation for one of the students named Allison (Corri English), who becomes convinced that something is not right with the body they are working on, as something tells her that things are not as they seem.
Allison’s concerns are dismissed as her being overwhelmed by her first encounter with a body, and she is told that her concerns will soon pass. Soon after, one of the dissection group is affected by a freak accident, and Allison becomes convinced that there are evil forces at work, and that nobody will be safe until the mystery behind the corpse is settled.
As the body count rises, Allison and her friend Brian (Scot Davis), face a race against the clock and the supernatural to find the cause of the unrest and make things right, before they end up the next victims of a vengeful specter.
Unrest is a very impressive debut for Ipson, who himself was a promising surgeon before turning his talents to directing. The film is well paced and has plenty of tension and suspense without resorting to the clichéd horror staples that have become all too common.
The plot is refreshingly original and deeper than most films in this genre attempt to achieve, as its complexity is deceiving simply. The film can be taken as a simple scare fest, but for those willing to look beneath the surface, there are deeper layers to the film that tackle areas such as the afterlife, intuition, possession, second sight, and the supernatural. While all of those have been covered before in various films, few have ever combined them in such an intelligent fashion that allows the audience to reach their own conclusions on the topics the film introduces.
The cast is solid especially Davis and English who take what could easily be stock characters and infuse a sense of purpose which helps the audience relate to them and their situation.
While the film might have what appears to some to be plot holes, the film is actually a clever examination of the spirit and afterlife, and delivers the goods. While much has been made about the alleged use of real body parts in the film, Ipson is careful not to let his film become a gratuitous gore fest and uses blood and carnage only in the amounts necessary to propel the story.
Unrest is a very solid effort that marks the emergence of a talent to be watched and will delight fans of the genre who want some intelligence with their horror.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Characters – Lisbeth Salander is the famous hacker that will stand up against any man that is causing a woman abuse, she will leave her brand on them. She is called for difficult hacking jobs, which sees her take something from the Americans, this makes her a wanted suspect in Sweden and her on the run looking for answers to clear her name. Mikael Blomkvist is still the only person that Lisbeth will trust, he tries to operate from a distant and investigates the trust behind what is happening. Ed Needham is the American that has his system hacked, a government man, he heads to Sweden to get it back and finds nothing but barriers from the Swedish government. Camilla Salander is the long lost sister of Lisbeth, she thought to be dead, but now she is involved in a criminal gang known as The Spiders, targeting Lisbeth for what she wants.
Performances – Claire Foy does feel mis-cast in this role, she doesn’t seem to have a tough enough look to make this character effect as the two previous stars. Sverrir Gudnason had large shoes to fill and he doesn’t do a strong enough job in the Mikael role, while Sylvia Hoeks does what she can with her role without being anything overly special, while LaKeith Stanfield doesn’t seem to feel like the character he is meant to be playing.
Story – The story here is the fourth story in the Dragon Tattoo world, the second in English and is the first not written by the original author. We follow Lisbeth who once again finds herself needing to take on secret organisation that what something that could put the world in danger and this time it becomes more personal, with her sister being the enemy. This story does feel like it has borrowed from many other films and while it still puts Lisbeth is an anti-hero role, we only seem to find ourselves in one direction where Lisbeth is always one step ahead of everything happening, despite the fact we get to see just how twisted the Spiders are, it paints one image of them only to leave us facing a different softer enemy.
Action/Crime – The action was pretty much all given away in the trailer, we have the motorbike chase across the ice, the car chases and shoot outs, each feels very similar and doesn’t have the suspense required in a thriller.
Settings – The film does try to bring everything back to Lisbeth’s backstory with the settings showing the off the grid life she current lives compared to the one she could have lived, the snowy roads add a little to the chases, but not that much overall.
Scene of the Movie – Ice lake escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Spider’s not hinting at wanting to do to what they did to the guy without a nose, to the new Lisbeth group.
Final Thoughts – This does feel like a cash grab on a franchise that has never taken off on the American side of things, we get everything scaled back leaving us feeling disappointed by the end of the film.
Overall: No thrills to be seen here.
Performances – Claire Foy does feel mis-cast in this role, she doesn’t seem to have a tough enough look to make this character effect as the two previous stars. Sverrir Gudnason had large shoes to fill and he doesn’t do a strong enough job in the Mikael role, while Sylvia Hoeks does what she can with her role without being anything overly special, while LaKeith Stanfield doesn’t seem to feel like the character he is meant to be playing.
Story – The story here is the fourth story in the Dragon Tattoo world, the second in English and is the first not written by the original author. We follow Lisbeth who once again finds herself needing to take on secret organisation that what something that could put the world in danger and this time it becomes more personal, with her sister being the enemy. This story does feel like it has borrowed from many other films and while it still puts Lisbeth is an anti-hero role, we only seem to find ourselves in one direction where Lisbeth is always one step ahead of everything happening, despite the fact we get to see just how twisted the Spiders are, it paints one image of them only to leave us facing a different softer enemy.
Action/Crime – The action was pretty much all given away in the trailer, we have the motorbike chase across the ice, the car chases and shoot outs, each feels very similar and doesn’t have the suspense required in a thriller.
Settings – The film does try to bring everything back to Lisbeth’s backstory with the settings showing the off the grid life she current lives compared to the one she could have lived, the snowy roads add a little to the chases, but not that much overall.
Scene of the Movie – Ice lake escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Spider’s not hinting at wanting to do to what they did to the guy without a nose, to the new Lisbeth group.
Final Thoughts – This does feel like a cash grab on a franchise that has never taken off on the American side of things, we get everything scaled back leaving us feeling disappointed by the end of the film.
Overall: No thrills to be seen here.