Search
Search results
Becs (244 KP) rated A Raisin in the Sun in Books
Oct 2, 2019
They honestly need more books like this. When my husband found out that I was getting A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry, he grew excited and he never does that unless it’s a science-related book. That was when I knew I was going to like this beautiful novel. When I started to read it, I rushed through it. Not in a “I just want to finish this book” way, more like “I FREAKING LOVE THIS BOOK AND I DON’T EVER WANT IT TO END” way. That says something, right?
A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry
Genre: Literary Classic, Play, Drama, Fiction
Synopsis: First produced in 1959, A Raisin in the Sun was awarded the New York Drama Critics Circle Award and hailed as a watershed in American drama. Not only a pioneering work by an African-American playwright – Lorraine Hansberry’s play was also a radically new representation of black life, resolutely authentic, fiercely unsentimental, and unflinching in its vision of what happens to people whose dreams are constantly deferred. In her portrait of an embattled Chicago family, Hansberry anticapted issues that range from generational clashes to the civil rights and women’s movements. She also posed the essential questions – about identity, justice, and moral responsibility – at the heart of those great struggles. The result is an American classic.
Audience/Reading Level: Middle School +
Interests: Plays, dramas, literary classics, racial segregation, women’s movement, 50s era.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: Not at all, I rushed through it because I loved it so much! As in some of Shakespeares plays, you don’t get stuck on the general language of the era it was written, as it’s written close to a book you would get from this era.
Promise: “Award-winning drama of the hopes and aspirations of a struggling, working-class family living on the South Side of Chicago connected profoundly with the psyche of black America–and changed American theater forever.” – It did. 🙂
Insights: I love reading plays as it’s a way to step out of a comfort zone of reading Young Adult novels. It gives me a chance to dip into my theater/acting side and use what I’ve learned from theatre classes. A Raisin in the Sun is a well-written American classic that honestly should be read in every school from middle school and up. The lessens that are taught throughout the play are subtle yet obvious which creates a background that we can use in our every day life.
Ah-Ha Moment: The moment that Beneatha came into the picture and was a total feminist. Man, she’s my favorite character besides Mama (Lena Younger) and her little plant.
Favorite Quotes: “Beneatha: Love him? There is nothing left to love. Mama: There is always something left to love. And if you ain’t learned that, you ain’t learned nothing. (Looking at her) Have you cried for that boy today? I don’t mean for yourself and for the family ’cause we lost the money. I mean for him: what he been through and what it done to him. Child, when do you think is the time to love somebody the most? When they done good and made things easy for everybody? Well then, you ain’t through learning – because that ain’t the time at all. It’s when he’s at his lowest and can’t believe in hisself ’cause the world done whipped him so! when you starts measuring somebody, measure him right, child, measure him right. Make sure you done taken into account what hills and valleys he come through before he got to wherever he is.”
“Mama, you don’t understand. It’s all a matter of ideas, and God is just one idea I don’t acept. It’s not important. I am not going out and commit crimes or be immoral because I don’t believe in God. I don’t even think about it. It’s just that I get so tired of Him getting credit for all the things the human race achieves through its own stubborn effort. There simply is no God! There is only Man, and it’s he who makes miracles!”
What will you gain: A haunting yet revealing play that will be as fresh of a read today, as it was in the 50’s.
Aesthetics: The entire play. The cover. The characters. The underlying meaning beneath it all. The era it was written and is based off of. Just everything about this little book.
“I want to fly! I want to touch the sun!”
“Finish your eggs first.”
A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry
Genre: Literary Classic, Play, Drama, Fiction
Synopsis: First produced in 1959, A Raisin in the Sun was awarded the New York Drama Critics Circle Award and hailed as a watershed in American drama. Not only a pioneering work by an African-American playwright – Lorraine Hansberry’s play was also a radically new representation of black life, resolutely authentic, fiercely unsentimental, and unflinching in its vision of what happens to people whose dreams are constantly deferred. In her portrait of an embattled Chicago family, Hansberry anticapted issues that range from generational clashes to the civil rights and women’s movements. She also posed the essential questions – about identity, justice, and moral responsibility – at the heart of those great struggles. The result is an American classic.
Audience/Reading Level: Middle School +
Interests: Plays, dramas, literary classics, racial segregation, women’s movement, 50s era.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: Not at all, I rushed through it because I loved it so much! As in some of Shakespeares plays, you don’t get stuck on the general language of the era it was written, as it’s written close to a book you would get from this era.
Promise: “Award-winning drama of the hopes and aspirations of a struggling, working-class family living on the South Side of Chicago connected profoundly with the psyche of black America–and changed American theater forever.” – It did. 🙂
Insights: I love reading plays as it’s a way to step out of a comfort zone of reading Young Adult novels. It gives me a chance to dip into my theater/acting side and use what I’ve learned from theatre classes. A Raisin in the Sun is a well-written American classic that honestly should be read in every school from middle school and up. The lessens that are taught throughout the play are subtle yet obvious which creates a background that we can use in our every day life.
Ah-Ha Moment: The moment that Beneatha came into the picture and was a total feminist. Man, she’s my favorite character besides Mama (Lena Younger) and her little plant.
Favorite Quotes: “Beneatha: Love him? There is nothing left to love. Mama: There is always something left to love. And if you ain’t learned that, you ain’t learned nothing. (Looking at her) Have you cried for that boy today? I don’t mean for yourself and for the family ’cause we lost the money. I mean for him: what he been through and what it done to him. Child, when do you think is the time to love somebody the most? When they done good and made things easy for everybody? Well then, you ain’t through learning – because that ain’t the time at all. It’s when he’s at his lowest and can’t believe in hisself ’cause the world done whipped him so! when you starts measuring somebody, measure him right, child, measure him right. Make sure you done taken into account what hills and valleys he come through before he got to wherever he is.”
“Mama, you don’t understand. It’s all a matter of ideas, and God is just one idea I don’t acept. It’s not important. I am not going out and commit crimes or be immoral because I don’t believe in God. I don’t even think about it. It’s just that I get so tired of Him getting credit for all the things the human race achieves through its own stubborn effort. There simply is no God! There is only Man, and it’s he who makes miracles!”
What will you gain: A haunting yet revealing play that will be as fresh of a read today, as it was in the 50’s.
Aesthetics: The entire play. The cover. The characters. The underlying meaning beneath it all. The era it was written and is based off of. Just everything about this little book.
“I want to fly! I want to touch the sun!”
“Finish your eggs first.”
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Children Act (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“And the Oscar goes to”… (or should go to)… “Dame Emma Thompson”.
Given my last review was for “The Equalizer 2“, where Denzel was judge, jury and executioner, it’s a nice seque that this film follows the life of a senior judge in London’s Law Courts: trying to do the justice job, but in the right way!
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Nov 30, 2017
My local cinema held a secret screening last night, and Molly's Game was the surprise movie they showed. Beforehand, I'd probably only seen the name of the movie along with the accompanying poster and I had literally no idea what it was about. If I'd seen the trailer, and knew a bit more about the plot movie, I don't think I'd have gone to watch it, but it actually turned out to be a pretty enjoyable movie. Despite the fact that there were about 10 other movies I was secretly hoping they'd screen instead, I wasn't disappointed by this. That's the gamble you take with a secret screening I guess.
Molly's Game is based on a true story, and the accompanying book written by Molly Bloom. It's written and directed by Aaron Sorkin, writer of, among other things, The West Wing and The Newsroom, so you get a pretty good idea of the quick-witted snappy dialogue that you're in for. Jessica Chastain plays Molly, and she is just absolutely incredible in this movie. Not knowing the basic story it was based on, the opening scenes changed direction so many times that I was left wondering what the movie was actually going to be about and which direction it was headed. Narrated by Molly, we're initially introduced to her life as an Olympic class skier. She describes her younger life training with her stern father (Kevin Costner), the spinal surgery which put her out of action for a while, her fight back to the top and the tragic accident which then put her out of action once more. Then we jump forward 12 years, where Molly is suddenly woken one morning by a phone call. It's the FBI, and they want her to come out of her room within the next few minutes or they're going to break down the door. When she does come out, she is cuffed and arrested for running high-stakes poker games. We then see her in the office of Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba), a top (and expensive) lawyer who Molly would like to represent her. The remainder of the movie then switches between Molly narrating and filling us in on the events of the last decade or so leading up to now, and Molly and Charlie as they bicker and work together in piecing together her defence.
The first half of the movie is enjoyable as we follow Molly, working her way up from bored secretary to running hugely expensive poker games for the rich, famous and weird in Los Angeles and then New York. As mentioned earlier, Jessica Chastain is simply amazing, given a superb performance as we follow Molly from troubled child to shrewd, intelligent business woman and 'poker princess'. At the height of her game she was legally raking in thousands of dollars each night, and even getting on the wrong side of the Russian mob. However, after a while it all starts to drag a little and I feel the movie could have benefited from a much tighter run time (it's 160 minutes long). Things pick up again towards the end though, and Costner and Elba get their chance to shine. Well worth watching.
Molly's Game is based on a true story, and the accompanying book written by Molly Bloom. It's written and directed by Aaron Sorkin, writer of, among other things, The West Wing and The Newsroom, so you get a pretty good idea of the quick-witted snappy dialogue that you're in for. Jessica Chastain plays Molly, and she is just absolutely incredible in this movie. Not knowing the basic story it was based on, the opening scenes changed direction so many times that I was left wondering what the movie was actually going to be about and which direction it was headed. Narrated by Molly, we're initially introduced to her life as an Olympic class skier. She describes her younger life training with her stern father (Kevin Costner), the spinal surgery which put her out of action for a while, her fight back to the top and the tragic accident which then put her out of action once more. Then we jump forward 12 years, where Molly is suddenly woken one morning by a phone call. It's the FBI, and they want her to come out of her room within the next few minutes or they're going to break down the door. When she does come out, she is cuffed and arrested for running high-stakes poker games. We then see her in the office of Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba), a top (and expensive) lawyer who Molly would like to represent her. The remainder of the movie then switches between Molly narrating and filling us in on the events of the last decade or so leading up to now, and Molly and Charlie as they bicker and work together in piecing together her defence.
The first half of the movie is enjoyable as we follow Molly, working her way up from bored secretary to running hugely expensive poker games for the rich, famous and weird in Los Angeles and then New York. As mentioned earlier, Jessica Chastain is simply amazing, given a superb performance as we follow Molly from troubled child to shrewd, intelligent business woman and 'poker princess'. At the height of her game she was legally raking in thousands of dollars each night, and even getting on the wrong side of the Russian mob. However, after a while it all starts to drag a little and I feel the movie could have benefited from a much tighter run time (it's 160 minutes long). Things pick up again towards the end though, and Costner and Elba get their chance to shine. Well worth watching.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Run All Night (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Neeson at his gritty best
It’s fair to say Liam Neeson has picked some decidedly dodgy acting jobs since his rise to become an A-list Hollywood action hero. From a disappointing turn in the most recent A Team movie to the laughably bad Taken 3, he seems to have been turned from fan favourite to the butt of so many jokes.
After January’s poorly received Taken 3, Neeson returns to give the genre another go in Run All Night, but does Jaume Collet-Serra’s intriguing direction return him to the top of the food chain?
Run All Night follows the story of Neeson’s Jimmy Conlon as he does his best to keep his son Michael, played by Joel Kinnaman, away from the deadly clutches of Sean Maguire, a brutal underworld gangster portrayed by Ed Harris, after the murder of Sean’s son Danny over the course of 16 hours.
What ensues is a formulaic action thriller featuring by-the-numbers set pieces that are interspersed with some inspiring cinematography and all the actors at the top of their game.
Neeson’s Jimmy is an alcoholic former hit man, previously employed by Maguire, who has decided to move away from his shady past and become a more rounded individual. His interactions with Ed Harris’ brilliant Sean are excellent and the pair have genuine chemistry – it’s just a shame that their backstory isn’t built on a little more.
As the audience follows Jimmy and Michael evading the police, mobsters and professional hired killers, the film traces their backstory, almost using the action-packed set pieces as checkpoints for a bit more history and from a genre that rarely utilises character development, this is a welcome addition.
The cinematography is truly stunning. The sweeping shots of New York City are inspired and the use of tracking and aerial panning instead of simply fading between scenes stylises the film like no other action movie from the last few years.
There is an air of The Taking of Pelham 123 in Serra’s direction, and of course the similarities to Neeson’s Taken and Serra’s very own Non-Stop that also starred the Irish actor are obvious.
Unfortunately, all these comparisons mean that Run All Night isn’t particularly original in premise despite its unique direction. We’ve seen it all before, we saw Neeson running about and shooting bad guys in Taken, Taken 2 and Taken 3. We saw him try to get the bottom of a serious problem in Non-Stop and we saw him take on the role of a troubled alcoholic in The Grey.
Yes, after Taken 3, Run All Night showcases Neeson at his gritty best, but it’s in Ed Harris that we find the most intriguing
character and he puts everything into Sean Maguire – despite his more than familiar name.
Thankfully, Serra and the production crew steered away from creating a film that would please the masses and opted for an often brutal, yet strangely warming action thriller – along the way avoiding the pitfalls of some of Neeson’s previous efforts.
Overall, Run All Night isn’t the disaster it could have been and shows what everyone’s favourite Irish actor is capable of when given the right material to work with. Ed Harris is also on point and Jaume Collet-Serra’s direction goes above and beyond what the genre asks for.
Only an underwhelming final act and a highly unoriginal story stop it from becoming the film it so deeply wanted to be.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/15/neeson-at-his-gritty-best-run-all-night-review/
After January’s poorly received Taken 3, Neeson returns to give the genre another go in Run All Night, but does Jaume Collet-Serra’s intriguing direction return him to the top of the food chain?
Run All Night follows the story of Neeson’s Jimmy Conlon as he does his best to keep his son Michael, played by Joel Kinnaman, away from the deadly clutches of Sean Maguire, a brutal underworld gangster portrayed by Ed Harris, after the murder of Sean’s son Danny over the course of 16 hours.
What ensues is a formulaic action thriller featuring by-the-numbers set pieces that are interspersed with some inspiring cinematography and all the actors at the top of their game.
Neeson’s Jimmy is an alcoholic former hit man, previously employed by Maguire, who has decided to move away from his shady past and become a more rounded individual. His interactions with Ed Harris’ brilliant Sean are excellent and the pair have genuine chemistry – it’s just a shame that their backstory isn’t built on a little more.
As the audience follows Jimmy and Michael evading the police, mobsters and professional hired killers, the film traces their backstory, almost using the action-packed set pieces as checkpoints for a bit more history and from a genre that rarely utilises character development, this is a welcome addition.
The cinematography is truly stunning. The sweeping shots of New York City are inspired and the use of tracking and aerial panning instead of simply fading between scenes stylises the film like no other action movie from the last few years.
There is an air of The Taking of Pelham 123 in Serra’s direction, and of course the similarities to Neeson’s Taken and Serra’s very own Non-Stop that also starred the Irish actor are obvious.
Unfortunately, all these comparisons mean that Run All Night isn’t particularly original in premise despite its unique direction. We’ve seen it all before, we saw Neeson running about and shooting bad guys in Taken, Taken 2 and Taken 3. We saw him try to get the bottom of a serious problem in Non-Stop and we saw him take on the role of a troubled alcoholic in The Grey.
Yes, after Taken 3, Run All Night showcases Neeson at his gritty best, but it’s in Ed Harris that we find the most intriguing
character and he puts everything into Sean Maguire – despite his more than familiar name.
Thankfully, Serra and the production crew steered away from creating a film that would please the masses and opted for an often brutal, yet strangely warming action thriller – along the way avoiding the pitfalls of some of Neeson’s previous efforts.
Overall, Run All Night isn’t the disaster it could have been and shows what everyone’s favourite Irish actor is capable of when given the right material to work with. Ed Harris is also on point and Jaume Collet-Serra’s direction goes above and beyond what the genre asks for.
Only an underwhelming final act and a highly unoriginal story stop it from becoming the film it so deeply wanted to be.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/15/neeson-at-his-gritty-best-run-all-night-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Non-Stop (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
On the wrong side of 60 you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was time for Liam Neeson to hang up his gun and move away from the cold, steely world of action films, into the fuzzy and sentimental territory of a rom-com.
Thankfully he and director Jaume Collet-Serra, who Neeson previously worked with on the disappointing thriller Unknown, have decided to continue with the action thriller theme in Taken on a Plane, sorry… Non-Stop.
Neeson plays troubled US air marshal Bill Marks as he begins a non-stop flight from New York to London, though from the outset it is obvious this will be no ordinary journey.
Marks is a man with a chequered past. From suffering with depression after the breakdown of his marriage to his subsequent alcoholism, everything seems to be utterly gloomy.
Soon after take off, Neeson’s character is sent numerous anonymous texts stating that a person on board will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a bank account.
Cue Neeson’s trademark gruff tone as he shouts about the cabin trying to discover just hr_Non-Stop_6who is behind the messages. It’s fair to say things aren’t as simple as that and Collet-Serra’s spirited direction keeps things moving with more twists than a curly-wurly.
Julianne Moore stars as Marks’s ‘seat neighbour’ and is as usual excellent but unusually bland, portraying a character that numerous other actresses could’ve fitted into quite easily – it’s a strange departure from Moore’s more deep characterisations, but she does it well despite the lack of material she’s given to work with.
The plot is well driven by the excellent cinematography, using the confined spaces of an aircraft to great effect with sweeping shots of the cabin over the heads of passengers and the use of aeroplane windows to move in and out of the fuselage.
Technology plays a huge part in Non-Stop, the constant stream of text messages that Neeson receives could have made the film fall flat, but thankfully each one is put up on the screen allowing the audience to read them in real time, rather than stopping the story dead and allowing boredom to set in.
Whilst the story and plot are first-rate, the special effects unfortunately are not such a blast. Whilst the majority of them are passable given the film’s relatively small budget of $50 million, the shots of the aircraft towards the finale are underwhelming and look like they belong in a video game, not a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise very competent film.
Thankfully Neeson’s now applauded acting technique distracts from these moments enough to steer Non-Stop to a pulse-racing and very satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Non-Stop is good fun from start to finish and barely slows within its succinct running time. However, it all feels very familiar and this is a problem for its main star too. For all of Neeson’s fans this is another good notch on their bedposts – but I doubt it will bring any newcomers to his admittedly large following, meaning he runs of the risk of being typecast.
Nevertheless, apart from a few lapses in special effects and a rather bland Julianne Moore, Non-Stop is definitely worth a watch – even if there may be a sense of deja vu.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/01/non-stop-review/
Thankfully he and director Jaume Collet-Serra, who Neeson previously worked with on the disappointing thriller Unknown, have decided to continue with the action thriller theme in Taken on a Plane, sorry… Non-Stop.
Neeson plays troubled US air marshal Bill Marks as he begins a non-stop flight from New York to London, though from the outset it is obvious this will be no ordinary journey.
Marks is a man with a chequered past. From suffering with depression after the breakdown of his marriage to his subsequent alcoholism, everything seems to be utterly gloomy.
Soon after take off, Neeson’s character is sent numerous anonymous texts stating that a person on board will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a bank account.
Cue Neeson’s trademark gruff tone as he shouts about the cabin trying to discover just hr_Non-Stop_6who is behind the messages. It’s fair to say things aren’t as simple as that and Collet-Serra’s spirited direction keeps things moving with more twists than a curly-wurly.
Julianne Moore stars as Marks’s ‘seat neighbour’ and is as usual excellent but unusually bland, portraying a character that numerous other actresses could’ve fitted into quite easily – it’s a strange departure from Moore’s more deep characterisations, but she does it well despite the lack of material she’s given to work with.
The plot is well driven by the excellent cinematography, using the confined spaces of an aircraft to great effect with sweeping shots of the cabin over the heads of passengers and the use of aeroplane windows to move in and out of the fuselage.
Technology plays a huge part in Non-Stop, the constant stream of text messages that Neeson receives could have made the film fall flat, but thankfully each one is put up on the screen allowing the audience to read them in real time, rather than stopping the story dead and allowing boredom to set in.
Whilst the story and plot are first-rate, the special effects unfortunately are not such a blast. Whilst the majority of them are passable given the film’s relatively small budget of $50 million, the shots of the aircraft towards the finale are underwhelming and look like they belong in a video game, not a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise very competent film.
Thankfully Neeson’s now applauded acting technique distracts from these moments enough to steer Non-Stop to a pulse-racing and very satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Non-Stop is good fun from start to finish and barely slows within its succinct running time. However, it all feels very familiar and this is a problem for its main star too. For all of Neeson’s fans this is another good notch on their bedposts – but I doubt it will bring any newcomers to his admittedly large following, meaning he runs of the risk of being typecast.
Nevertheless, apart from a few lapses in special effects and a rather bland Julianne Moore, Non-Stop is definitely worth a watch – even if there may be a sense of deja vu.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/01/non-stop-review/
Sloane Jacobsen is the most famous and sought after trends forecaster in the world. Companies across the globe seek Sloane's knowledge about the "next big thing." Sloane may be confident in her work life, but her personal life is a mess. She's not happy with her boyfriend, Roman, and she's basically estranged from her family--all since she fled to Paris shortly after her father's death. But now Sloane is working for six months in New York: she's back near her family, and Roman is accompanying her on the trip.
This book immediately got off on the wrong foot with me as the main character ranted against how society has changed--using peanut allergies and the horror of having to avoid her favorite peanut-filled treats on a plane as proof. As someone with a kid with a peanut allergy (who has met these lovely people on planes in real life), I was already turned off by Sloane. <i>It never really got any better. </i>
Sloane is supposedly a trend forecaster. Her entire life she's been able to "see" things and predict where society is going with certain trends. She is credited with foreseeing the famous "swipe" action. The problem Sloane faces now is that she thinks society is going to turn against the technology it has come to hold so dear: something that doesn't sit well with the technology-focused firm, Mammoth, who has hired her. After all, Mammoth uses a driverless car to transport Sloane while she works for them. They want her to present at a convention that aims to showcase technology for the childless set.
On the surface, this doesn't sound so bad. Consider parts of it satire and a critique on our tech-obsessed society, and it has real promise. Unfortunately, for me, <i>the premise fell flat.</i> My favorite character wound up being Anastasia, the driverless car. Sloane's boyfriend, Roman, wears a Zentai suit (imagine a full-length wet-suit that covers his entire body) and preaches an anti-touch, pro-cybersex agenda. He's strange. That whole part of the plot is weird, albeit one that offers the occasional comic moment. Maybe my sense of humor is not finely developed enough?
The book nails a lot of the corporate world (you can certainly picture Dax, the head of Mammoth, and many of his worker bees). Other parts of the plot are harder to swallow. Sloane waffles. Roman irritates. The dialogue is oddly written at times. Large pieces of the plot didn't really seem necessary. Other pieces were interesting, but felt like reading a research paper (and I found myself skimming).
So while there were certainly funny moments (and it picked up a bit as it neared the end), overall I just found myself cringing. I didn't like the plot, I never warmed up to Sloane, and I wanted to hit Roman and Dax. Maybe I missed a higher meaning to this novel, as it seems to be getting a lot of better reviews, so take mine with a grain of salt. For me, I just didn't enjoy reading it, and that's why (and I debated this a while), I'm going with 2.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review. It is available everywhere as of 05/30/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
This book immediately got off on the wrong foot with me as the main character ranted against how society has changed--using peanut allergies and the horror of having to avoid her favorite peanut-filled treats on a plane as proof. As someone with a kid with a peanut allergy (who has met these lovely people on planes in real life), I was already turned off by Sloane. <i>It never really got any better. </i>
Sloane is supposedly a trend forecaster. Her entire life she's been able to "see" things and predict where society is going with certain trends. She is credited with foreseeing the famous "swipe" action. The problem Sloane faces now is that she thinks society is going to turn against the technology it has come to hold so dear: something that doesn't sit well with the technology-focused firm, Mammoth, who has hired her. After all, Mammoth uses a driverless car to transport Sloane while she works for them. They want her to present at a convention that aims to showcase technology for the childless set.
On the surface, this doesn't sound so bad. Consider parts of it satire and a critique on our tech-obsessed society, and it has real promise. Unfortunately, for me, <i>the premise fell flat.</i> My favorite character wound up being Anastasia, the driverless car. Sloane's boyfriend, Roman, wears a Zentai suit (imagine a full-length wet-suit that covers his entire body) and preaches an anti-touch, pro-cybersex agenda. He's strange. That whole part of the plot is weird, albeit one that offers the occasional comic moment. Maybe my sense of humor is not finely developed enough?
The book nails a lot of the corporate world (you can certainly picture Dax, the head of Mammoth, and many of his worker bees). Other parts of the plot are harder to swallow. Sloane waffles. Roman irritates. The dialogue is oddly written at times. Large pieces of the plot didn't really seem necessary. Other pieces were interesting, but felt like reading a research paper (and I found myself skimming).
So while there were certainly funny moments (and it picked up a bit as it neared the end), overall I just found myself cringing. I didn't like the plot, I never warmed up to Sloane, and I wanted to hit Roman and Dax. Maybe I missed a higher meaning to this novel, as it seems to be getting a lot of better reviews, so take mine with a grain of salt. For me, I just didn't enjoy reading it, and that's why (and I debated this a while), I'm going with 2.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review. It is available everywhere as of 05/30/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Awkward, failed attempt at satire?
After college, Elinor moves to New York with her journalism degree and dreams of writing pieces that mean something. She sees a future with her boyfriend, Mike, also a journalist. Instead, Elinor lives in a cramped apartment with no kitchen, sleeps on a foam pad, and nannies to two slightly whiny and obsessive children. She thinks her future is looking up when she's offered a position at Journalism.ly, a digital brand a la BuzzFeed. But soon Elinor learns that her sole function there is to produce pieces that go "viral" and then she and Mike break up, pushing her into a deeper depression. Is it even possible to have the creative and romantic life she dreamed of, Elinor wonders?
I won't lie; this was a strange book. Even the narration style is odd. While it's told mostly from Elinor's point of view, we get this peculiar device thrown in at times (e.g., "the reader should know"). You get used to it eventually, but still.
In fact, the whole novel can be very awkward at times and after a while, I lost the thread on whether it was because the book was well-done (she's so well-written!) or just awkward and painful. A lot of the book features much melodrama between the characters, most of whom always seemed to be having bad days. Really, was life so terrible? There is much angst, a lot of social media usage, lots of happy hours and supposed networking, and not a lot of people to care about.
For indeed, a lot of the characters are not likable, and I found myself vacillating in my feelings for Elinor. I didn't grow up in the social media world, like she, but am immersed in it enough now that I could empathize with her--to a point. At some stages, the novel really captured some painful situations. There were some funny points, and places where Elinor could be helpless yet sympathetic. At other points, Elinor was just hapless and unable to take charge of her life in any capacity and filled me with abject terror for the future of the nation.
I was honestly baffled at times on whether the book was satiric, or a commentary on social media and journalism, or taking itself too seriously. Elinor winds up working for Journalism.ly, which is said to be similar to BuzzFeed (and many other sites), and she's told to make things go viral, which, funnily enough, she has a bit of a knack for, despite her own inability to make friends or succeed in social situations (or life, in general). Whether all of this is ironic or not, I'll never quite know.
So, in the end, I'm at a loss with this one. I really don't know how I feel. Satire? A look at a generation? A bunch of hapless unlikable people prattling on? All three combined? I can say that this was a fast read--the author drew me in, as I read it in about a day. I was left with a weird feeling when I finished. I can't say I really recommend it, but it was an interesting read at times.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review; more at https://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
I won't lie; this was a strange book. Even the narration style is odd. While it's told mostly from Elinor's point of view, we get this peculiar device thrown in at times (e.g., "the reader should know"). You get used to it eventually, but still.
In fact, the whole novel can be very awkward at times and after a while, I lost the thread on whether it was because the book was well-done (she's so well-written!) or just awkward and painful. A lot of the book features much melodrama between the characters, most of whom always seemed to be having bad days. Really, was life so terrible? There is much angst, a lot of social media usage, lots of happy hours and supposed networking, and not a lot of people to care about.
For indeed, a lot of the characters are not likable, and I found myself vacillating in my feelings for Elinor. I didn't grow up in the social media world, like she, but am immersed in it enough now that I could empathize with her--to a point. At some stages, the novel really captured some painful situations. There were some funny points, and places where Elinor could be helpless yet sympathetic. At other points, Elinor was just hapless and unable to take charge of her life in any capacity and filled me with abject terror for the future of the nation.
I was honestly baffled at times on whether the book was satiric, or a commentary on social media and journalism, or taking itself too seriously. Elinor winds up working for Journalism.ly, which is said to be similar to BuzzFeed (and many other sites), and she's told to make things go viral, which, funnily enough, she has a bit of a knack for, despite her own inability to make friends or succeed in social situations (or life, in general). Whether all of this is ironic or not, I'll never quite know.
So, in the end, I'm at a loss with this one. I really don't know how I feel. Satire? A look at a generation? A bunch of hapless unlikable people prattling on? All three combined? I can say that this was a fast read--the author drew me in, as I read it in about a day. I was left with a weird feeling when I finished. I can't say I really recommend it, but it was an interesting read at times.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review; more at https://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/.
Fred (860 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of LEGO Marvel Super Heroes 2 in Video Games
Jul 12, 2018
Tons of characters from the Marvel comics (2 more)
Cool story
Cool locales
Voice acting is meh (1 more)
Lots of glitches
More of the same, but different & glitchy
I've played all of the Lego games & I've seen some good ones, like the Star Wars one & I've seen some bad ones. (Looking at you Indiana Jones) I'm a fan of these games, as they're mindless fun, plus they're easy platinum trophies.
Lego Marvel Superheroes 2 is one of those good ones, although it does have some problems.
Let's start with the good. There are tons & I mean TONS of characters to unlock in this one. Mostly based on the comic book versions of the characters, with some from the MCU of course. It was so fun to play some of my favorite lesser-known characters, like the Spider-Man Noir version or the Kronan in the Planet Hulk arena.
The story is an original, with Kang the Conqueror as the main villain of the story. Because he's altering lime-lines, along with different dimensions, we have a world mixed with different worlds. We have Asgard, Manhattan Noir (a 30s-40s version of New York), Wild West Town, Avenger's Mansion, & many many more. Just like the mall in the movie The Blues Brothers, this place has got everything. It's so much fun jumping around from place to place.
Now the bad. Let's start with the voice acting. There are no famous voices in the game & it shows. Supposedly, the game was made during an actor's strike & so we got what they can get. Now, not saying the voice acting is bad, but it's just so-so. Some voices seem out of place for some characters. Captain America doesn't sound like he should. Doctor Strange doesn't sound like he should. Now, I may be ruined by the actors from the movies, but if you hear them in the game, you'll agree. It has less to do with their live-action counterparts & more of "Yeah, I never pictured Tony Stark sounding like...that."
And now my main complaint. Lots of glitches. Even after the update, I find lots of glitches in the game. The most annoying one is finding one of your characters stuck in a spot, dying over & over in an endless loop, such as falling off a platform to his/her death or stuck on some radioactive material. I found myself more than a few times having to exit the level & start all over due to this happening. Another glitch was in the arena, where Hulk turned himself back to Bruce Banner & would not turn back into the Hulk. Now maybe this was meant to happen, like in the Infinity War movie, when he was scared to turn to the Hulk, but I don't think so. Reason being towards the end of the fight, they have Hulk talking, while he was still as Bruce Banner. Luckily I didn't need Hulk to beat the level, as I would have had to start over. Other glitches include characters switching by themselves & audio cutting out.
This being said, I still want to play this game. While not one of the best Lego games, it's still fun & it's very cool, especially if you're a comic book fan.
Lego Marvel Superheroes 2 is one of those good ones, although it does have some problems.
Let's start with the good. There are tons & I mean TONS of characters to unlock in this one. Mostly based on the comic book versions of the characters, with some from the MCU of course. It was so fun to play some of my favorite lesser-known characters, like the Spider-Man Noir version or the Kronan in the Planet Hulk arena.
The story is an original, with Kang the Conqueror as the main villain of the story. Because he's altering lime-lines, along with different dimensions, we have a world mixed with different worlds. We have Asgard, Manhattan Noir (a 30s-40s version of New York), Wild West Town, Avenger's Mansion, & many many more. Just like the mall in the movie The Blues Brothers, this place has got everything. It's so much fun jumping around from place to place.
Now the bad. Let's start with the voice acting. There are no famous voices in the game & it shows. Supposedly, the game was made during an actor's strike & so we got what they can get. Now, not saying the voice acting is bad, but it's just so-so. Some voices seem out of place for some characters. Captain America doesn't sound like he should. Doctor Strange doesn't sound like he should. Now, I may be ruined by the actors from the movies, but if you hear them in the game, you'll agree. It has less to do with their live-action counterparts & more of "Yeah, I never pictured Tony Stark sounding like...that."
And now my main complaint. Lots of glitches. Even after the update, I find lots of glitches in the game. The most annoying one is finding one of your characters stuck in a spot, dying over & over in an endless loop, such as falling off a platform to his/her death or stuck on some radioactive material. I found myself more than a few times having to exit the level & start all over due to this happening. Another glitch was in the arena, where Hulk turned himself back to Bruce Banner & would not turn back into the Hulk. Now maybe this was meant to happen, like in the Infinity War movie, when he was scared to turn to the Hulk, but I don't think so. Reason being towards the end of the fight, they have Hulk talking, while he was still as Bruce Banner. Luckily I didn't need Hulk to beat the level, as I would have had to start over. Other glitches include characters switching by themselves & audio cutting out.
This being said, I still want to play this game. While not one of the best Lego games, it's still fun & it's very cool, especially if you're a comic book fan.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 1408 (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
For writer Mike Enslin (John Cusack), ghosts and the supernatural are simply myths people use to bolster the local economy with tourism dollars. Mike has made a career of evaluating and debunking so called haunted inns, hotels, graveyards, and locales all over the nation.
While his books do well enough for his editors to be happy with his work, and for locales to be included in his next book, Mike lives a life of routine.
One a promising author, Mike abandoned his novels for his haunted travel guides, and a life of hotels and sparsely attended book signings.
While Mike is evaluating the numerous brochures sent to him by prospective topics, he notices a simple hotel post card that features the simple message “Do not stay in room 1408”. Intrigued, Mike attempts to book the room for a review, but is unable to as the room is no longer available to the public.
With the help of his editor and the legal staff, Mike is able to cover the mysterious room 1408 at the Dolphin Hotel in New York.
Upon his arrival, Mike is greeted by the hotel manager Gerald Olin (Samuel L. Jackson), who offers numerous incentives ranging from rare Brandy, to a penthouse suite if Mike will give up his request to stay in 1408.
It is learned that over 50 people have died while staying in that room and that nobody has even been able to last an hour before befalling some horrific tragedy. Mike is convinced that this is all just part of the hype and that Olin is simply trying to scare him off.
Despite the numerous pleads from Olin to reconsider, Mike insists upon staying in the room, and is soon alone in room 1408.
Upon entering the room, Mike finds it to be a cozy and well maintained room. At first nothing seems out of the ordinary, until a couple of bizarre things happen. Mike is at first convinced there is a member of the hotel staff in hiding, who is playing a trick on him, but soon, Mike realizes just how and why 1408 earned its reputation.
What follows is a serious of horrors that Mike is unable to escape from, despite his best efforts, and he must figure out the mystery of 1408 before it kills him.
The film is based on a short story by Stephen King and is one of the better adaptations of the author’s works. Briskly paced at around 90-minutes, the film is careful to setup the characters and locale, but once the bizarre starts, the audience is in for a thrill ride complete with twists, turns, and some bizarre and suspenseful moments.
Cusack does a masterful job of portraying the conflicted Mike, but never lets you lose sympathy for the man, and displays a very effective ability to blend action, horror, emotions, and pathos, as Mike walks a razor thin line between reality and chaos.
It is especially effective given the fact that Cusack has to carry large segments of the film on his own, without any co-stars in much of his scenes.
The film does lose some momentum in the final 20 minutes, but still rebounds nicely to come to an effective and memorable ending without overusing many of the hackneyed horror film staples.
That being said if chills are what you are looking for this summer, then make sure to check into ?”
While his books do well enough for his editors to be happy with his work, and for locales to be included in his next book, Mike lives a life of routine.
One a promising author, Mike abandoned his novels for his haunted travel guides, and a life of hotels and sparsely attended book signings.
While Mike is evaluating the numerous brochures sent to him by prospective topics, he notices a simple hotel post card that features the simple message “Do not stay in room 1408”. Intrigued, Mike attempts to book the room for a review, but is unable to as the room is no longer available to the public.
With the help of his editor and the legal staff, Mike is able to cover the mysterious room 1408 at the Dolphin Hotel in New York.
Upon his arrival, Mike is greeted by the hotel manager Gerald Olin (Samuel L. Jackson), who offers numerous incentives ranging from rare Brandy, to a penthouse suite if Mike will give up his request to stay in 1408.
It is learned that over 50 people have died while staying in that room and that nobody has even been able to last an hour before befalling some horrific tragedy. Mike is convinced that this is all just part of the hype and that Olin is simply trying to scare him off.
Despite the numerous pleads from Olin to reconsider, Mike insists upon staying in the room, and is soon alone in room 1408.
Upon entering the room, Mike finds it to be a cozy and well maintained room. At first nothing seems out of the ordinary, until a couple of bizarre things happen. Mike is at first convinced there is a member of the hotel staff in hiding, who is playing a trick on him, but soon, Mike realizes just how and why 1408 earned its reputation.
What follows is a serious of horrors that Mike is unable to escape from, despite his best efforts, and he must figure out the mystery of 1408 before it kills him.
The film is based on a short story by Stephen King and is one of the better adaptations of the author’s works. Briskly paced at around 90-minutes, the film is careful to setup the characters and locale, but once the bizarre starts, the audience is in for a thrill ride complete with twists, turns, and some bizarre and suspenseful moments.
Cusack does a masterful job of portraying the conflicted Mike, but never lets you lose sympathy for the man, and displays a very effective ability to blend action, horror, emotions, and pathos, as Mike walks a razor thin line between reality and chaos.
It is especially effective given the fact that Cusack has to carry large segments of the film on his own, without any co-stars in much of his scenes.
The film does lose some momentum in the final 20 minutes, but still rebounds nicely to come to an effective and memorable ending without overusing many of the hackneyed horror film staples.
That being said if chills are what you are looking for this summer, then make sure to check into ?”