Search
Search results
John Roope (4 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Feb 12, 2019
Great Design (1 more)
Good Action
Cheesy Dialogue (3 more)
Paper thin characters
Poor Performances
Distracting CGI main character
A cluttered poorly written movie with engaging action keeping it afloat
Alita battle angel is full of great action and a potentially interesting story that's let down by a substandard script. It follows Alita a cyborg rebuilt by Dr Dyson Igo ( a substandard performance from Cristoph Waltz) who has amnesia and must rediscover her past while on a quest to reach the mysterious floating city of Salem.
The first act of the movie is probably the strongest from a character perspective as we see Alita exploring this new world and building relationships with our central characters however on a dime that all changes. After observing Dr Igos mysterious nocturnal activities she unlocks some of her past discovering that she has unmatched fighting capabilities and suddenly becomes a wise cracking badass instead of this innocent girl and suddenly the action is centre stage.
Alita becomes a hunter warrior and participates in motor ball in order to reach Salem and defeat the baddies that want to capture her at all costs for the enigmatic nova up in the floating city. The action is well choreographed and while it does sometimes creep into the transformers/man of steel realm of headache inducing loud cluttered cgi infused battles for the most part they are exciting and tense as she battles larger and more experienced opponents. However after seeing Alita best even the strongest the tension in these fights wane as it becomes clearer and clearer she is in a league of of her own and her heartless ruthlessness disconnected me somewhat from sympathising with her as a character.
Fallen by the wayside in this deluge of action is the development of side characters and their relationships with Alita as well as the back story for the world. The father daughter dynamic is left shallow as is her relationship with Hugo who has a rather troubling occupation and Igo's ex wife who's collaborating with Salems spokesperson Vektor in order to get to Salem. None of these characters have enough time to develop their characters in order to give the audience much of an emotional connection that just leaves the movie feeling very stretched out and thin especially as the emotional connection with our heroine wanes.
The effects for the most part were good for the most part but Alita's CGI face didn't work for me at all at times it was over expressive and other times looked blank. It left me cringing at times when she spoke as the uncanny valley territory creeps ever closer. It just struck me as unnecessary and down right creepy feeling like a twisted sexual fantasy of a ultra innocent doe eyed girl who was also a killing machine. It was endlessly distracting and feel like it would be easier to connect with her as a character if she didn't loom so fake while everyone else felt completely real.
Going into this for some fun balls to the wall action you probably won't be too disappointed but looking for much depth here will be in vain as this never reaches the levels the ambitiously vast story aspires to get to
The first act of the movie is probably the strongest from a character perspective as we see Alita exploring this new world and building relationships with our central characters however on a dime that all changes. After observing Dr Igos mysterious nocturnal activities she unlocks some of her past discovering that she has unmatched fighting capabilities and suddenly becomes a wise cracking badass instead of this innocent girl and suddenly the action is centre stage.
Alita becomes a hunter warrior and participates in motor ball in order to reach Salem and defeat the baddies that want to capture her at all costs for the enigmatic nova up in the floating city. The action is well choreographed and while it does sometimes creep into the transformers/man of steel realm of headache inducing loud cluttered cgi infused battles for the most part they are exciting and tense as she battles larger and more experienced opponents. However after seeing Alita best even the strongest the tension in these fights wane as it becomes clearer and clearer she is in a league of of her own and her heartless ruthlessness disconnected me somewhat from sympathising with her as a character.
Fallen by the wayside in this deluge of action is the development of side characters and their relationships with Alita as well as the back story for the world. The father daughter dynamic is left shallow as is her relationship with Hugo who has a rather troubling occupation and Igo's ex wife who's collaborating with Salems spokesperson Vektor in order to get to Salem. None of these characters have enough time to develop their characters in order to give the audience much of an emotional connection that just leaves the movie feeling very stretched out and thin especially as the emotional connection with our heroine wanes.
The effects for the most part were good for the most part but Alita's CGI face didn't work for me at all at times it was over expressive and other times looked blank. It left me cringing at times when she spoke as the uncanny valley territory creeps ever closer. It just struck me as unnecessary and down right creepy feeling like a twisted sexual fantasy of a ultra innocent doe eyed girl who was also a killing machine. It was endlessly distracting and feel like it would be easier to connect with her as a character if she didn't loom so fake while everyone else felt completely real.
Going into this for some fun balls to the wall action you probably won't be too disappointed but looking for much depth here will be in vain as this never reaches the levels the ambitiously vast story aspires to get to
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Favorite Sister in Books
Mar 10, 2019
Fell flat for me
The reality TV show Goal Diggers is supposed to buck the trend of most reality TV, with a focus on the radical notion that it is about women putting other women first. It even features unmarried, childless (for the most part), successful women. But, is that really the case? It sure seems like everyone on Diggers is fake and lying. There's Brett, 27, the youngest of the group, who is running her business, SPOKE, which focuses on helping women in Morocco. Her sister, Kelly is the newest addition, and she runs the business with Brett and is a mom to her teenage daughter, Layla. There's also Jen, who oversees her vegan empire; Lauren, creator of a dating website; and Stephanie, a successful author. None of these women really like each other after several seasons of the show. Even so, the producers never expected it all to end in murder.
I have some conflicted and confused emotions about this book. It took me over a week to read, which is forever in my world (I finished three other books in the meantime, to put it in perspective). You know how your Kindle tells you the percentage left to read? I swear that number never changed, it felt like such slow going, and I considered giving up several times. I really only kept reading because of a big reveal that happened on page one (literally) and then the rest of the book spends its time going back in time explaining what happened. I was mildly curious enough to find out what went down. The novel keeps you wondering just enough even if you don't like the characters.
Because, wow, these characters are really despicable. I can get past it in most books, and I thought maybe I'd like Brett for a while, but this self-centered group really took the cake. I am not a reality TV person, especially Real Housewives, so maybe that's part of why this one wasn't for me? I found the in-fighting, petty catfights, and personal drama to just be over-the-top. It's sad, because at times, I found a real wit and depth to the book, but for the most part it just dragged on. And on.
And again, some of this just may be because I'm not a reality TV gal. I really like Knoll's writing, I just couldn't get a handle on the tone. Funny? Serious? Both? What was it aiming for? Did it all just go over my head? I caught that it was trying for some really meaningful social commentary about feminism, weight, race, and so much more, but then it would get lost in two women fighting over platform heels.
There were some good twists at the end, but overall, this one fell flat for me, including the final ending. I felt like I slogged through it, and I just didn't enjoy the characters. Perhaps I missed the overall point or meaning. Many others have enjoyed it, so you may find it's more suited for you than it was for me.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
I have some conflicted and confused emotions about this book. It took me over a week to read, which is forever in my world (I finished three other books in the meantime, to put it in perspective). You know how your Kindle tells you the percentage left to read? I swear that number never changed, it felt like such slow going, and I considered giving up several times. I really only kept reading because of a big reveal that happened on page one (literally) and then the rest of the book spends its time going back in time explaining what happened. I was mildly curious enough to find out what went down. The novel keeps you wondering just enough even if you don't like the characters.
Because, wow, these characters are really despicable. I can get past it in most books, and I thought maybe I'd like Brett for a while, but this self-centered group really took the cake. I am not a reality TV person, especially Real Housewives, so maybe that's part of why this one wasn't for me? I found the in-fighting, petty catfights, and personal drama to just be over-the-top. It's sad, because at times, I found a real wit and depth to the book, but for the most part it just dragged on. And on.
And again, some of this just may be because I'm not a reality TV gal. I really like Knoll's writing, I just couldn't get a handle on the tone. Funny? Serious? Both? What was it aiming for? Did it all just go over my head? I caught that it was trying for some really meaningful social commentary about feminism, weight, race, and so much more, but then it would get lost in two women fighting over platform heels.
There were some good twists at the end, but overall, this one fell flat for me, including the final ending. I felt like I slogged through it, and I just didn't enjoy the characters. Perhaps I missed the overall point or meaning. Many others have enjoyed it, so you may find it's more suited for you than it was for me.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Edelweiss in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Give Me Your Hand in Books
Mar 10, 2019
Dark, intense, and compelling psychological thriller
Kit Owens is surviving high school but not living up to her true potential when Diane Fleming arrives at her school. Diane awakens a fire in Kit and the two form an unlikely friendship that propels Kit to academic success in her senior year. She and Diane study together and push each other to reach to be the best. Kit can't help but feel bad for her friend, who lives with her grandfather after the death of her dad. But all that changes when Diane shares an explosive secret with Kit, one that changes the way she views Diane and basically ends their friendship. Ten years later, Kit has tried to put Diane (and her secret) behind her. She's working in the lab of a female scientist, Dr. Severin, whom she's idolized for years--a woman Diane first helped introduce her to. But when Dr. Severin earns a prestigious grant and Kit learns that Diane is suddenly in the running for one of the coveted spots to work with the Doctor on the research, the past comes rushing back. Soon Diane and Kit find themselves over their head, with secrets and horror lurking around every corner.
So, I wasn't sure I was going to enjoy this one as I started it, but it grew on me. It's not really a pleasant read, at all, and none of the characters are ones you'll really love, but it's very compelling and there's a slow, foreboding creepiness that keeps you reading. I read this one quickly, as it's dark, twisty, and intense and very easy-to-read (as in, a page-turner, not the subject matter).
"My mom always say, you don't have a self until you have a secret." ~Diane
The novel flips between the "then" and "now" format, with Kit narrating to us. It's a female-centered book, and it easily depicts women's uphill battle in the workplace. It also shows the complicated feelings of our female characters: Kit has a lot of thoughts. Her struggle from a poor high school student to doctor is a fascinating one, even if I found her hard to empathize with. You won't necessarily agree with a lot of these characters' (sometimes outlandish) choices, but you'll find them oddly fascinating. I enjoyed how the novel delved into the darkness of friendship--and some of the competition that can come with it. Diane and Kit's relationship is dark and intense, as is the entire novel, really. The secrets that layer this book unravel slowly and eerily, and it really does keep you reading.
I especially thought this one was redeemed or bolstered by its ending; often a thriller is so good and then deflates at the end, but I actually thought this one got a little better at the end. The ending is really well-done, and I didn't feel let down whatsoever.
Overall, this is a dark, intense, and compelling psychological thriller. It's not exactly packed with loveable characters, but they are flawed, interesting, and--at times--quite creepy. You'll be drawn in by its twisty plot and complicated portrayal of friendship and secrets.
So, I wasn't sure I was going to enjoy this one as I started it, but it grew on me. It's not really a pleasant read, at all, and none of the characters are ones you'll really love, but it's very compelling and there's a slow, foreboding creepiness that keeps you reading. I read this one quickly, as it's dark, twisty, and intense and very easy-to-read (as in, a page-turner, not the subject matter).
"My mom always say, you don't have a self until you have a secret." ~Diane
The novel flips between the "then" and "now" format, with Kit narrating to us. It's a female-centered book, and it easily depicts women's uphill battle in the workplace. It also shows the complicated feelings of our female characters: Kit has a lot of thoughts. Her struggle from a poor high school student to doctor is a fascinating one, even if I found her hard to empathize with. You won't necessarily agree with a lot of these characters' (sometimes outlandish) choices, but you'll find them oddly fascinating. I enjoyed how the novel delved into the darkness of friendship--and some of the competition that can come with it. Diane and Kit's relationship is dark and intense, as is the entire novel, really. The secrets that layer this book unravel slowly and eerily, and it really does keep you reading.
I especially thought this one was redeemed or bolstered by its ending; often a thriller is so good and then deflates at the end, but I actually thought this one got a little better at the end. The ending is really well-done, and I didn't feel let down whatsoever.
Overall, this is a dark, intense, and compelling psychological thriller. It's not exactly packed with loveable characters, but they are flawed, interesting, and--at times--quite creepy. You'll be drawn in by its twisty plot and complicated portrayal of friendship and secrets.
Janeeny (200 KP) rated The Pisces in Books
May 9, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Lucy is a student who doesn’t really know what she wants in life, and after an acrimonious break up from her boyfriend. Her sister throws her a lifeline, giving Lucy a break from her desert life in Phoenix, her sister asks Lucy to housesit for her whilst also attending a local therapy group. So Lucy heads to Los Angeles and it’s here that she has an awakening and a lurid affair with a merman.
I read this as this months book club book. The lady that suggested it did mention that there are a fair amount of sex scenes and sexual references so I was prepared. However I must say that, for me, none of the sex scenes were gratuitous, they formed part of the story. If you took out the sex scenes the book really wouldn’t make a lot of sense or would at least be a bit weaker for it. The language she uses isn’t cliche or cringey either (there’s no heaving breasts or throbbing body parts) it’s very ‘real’.
This book is a bit like the ones you’re given to read in English literature classes in school, that are rife with meaning and symbolism that you have no idea about until your teacher points it out. I feel there is a strong feminist message in there somewhere, as most of the women in the book are trying to fight a sexual reliance on men. It’s also heavily underlined by the fact that literally all the male characters are weak in one way or another.
To that point I really did not like Theo, the main love interest. He seemed a bit too weak, not as a character but as a person. This is a book with a strong feminist message, so it wouldn’t do to have your heroine overshadowed by a man so that is understandable. (A little side note, a member of my book group bought up the interesting idea that the ‘weakness’ is just an act and he’s psychologically preying on Lucy’s vulnerability)
There are a lot of references to Sappho, which again I feel hints at a feminist message. I’m sorry to say that even though I am aware of Sappho I have barely any knowledge about her. I have now acquired a couple of books from the library to remedy this.
There were some quite strong opinions on this in book group. Whilst I liked the book for it’s style of writing, one of the other ladies liked it for its controversy, but most of the group really didn’t like it at all. The strong feeling against it came, mostly, from the explicit language that was used, whilst one member was so bewildered by the events within the book she was convinced the main character was just on a big drug trip and hallucinating the whole thing.
A couple of us did take something away from the book, I took away a strong interest in the works of Sappho, and one of the other members took away a deeper understanding of a past friend whose behaviour she recognised in some of the characters in the book.
I think we’re going for something a little less controversial next month
I read this as this months book club book. The lady that suggested it did mention that there are a fair amount of sex scenes and sexual references so I was prepared. However I must say that, for me, none of the sex scenes were gratuitous, they formed part of the story. If you took out the sex scenes the book really wouldn’t make a lot of sense or would at least be a bit weaker for it. The language she uses isn’t cliche or cringey either (there’s no heaving breasts or throbbing body parts) it’s very ‘real’.
This book is a bit like the ones you’re given to read in English literature classes in school, that are rife with meaning and symbolism that you have no idea about until your teacher points it out. I feel there is a strong feminist message in there somewhere, as most of the women in the book are trying to fight a sexual reliance on men. It’s also heavily underlined by the fact that literally all the male characters are weak in one way or another.
To that point I really did not like Theo, the main love interest. He seemed a bit too weak, not as a character but as a person. This is a book with a strong feminist message, so it wouldn’t do to have your heroine overshadowed by a man so that is understandable. (A little side note, a member of my book group bought up the interesting idea that the ‘weakness’ is just an act and he’s psychologically preying on Lucy’s vulnerability)
There are a lot of references to Sappho, which again I feel hints at a feminist message. I’m sorry to say that even though I am aware of Sappho I have barely any knowledge about her. I have now acquired a couple of books from the library to remedy this.
There were some quite strong opinions on this in book group. Whilst I liked the book for it’s style of writing, one of the other ladies liked it for its controversy, but most of the group really didn’t like it at all. The strong feeling against it came, mostly, from the explicit language that was used, whilst one member was so bewildered by the events within the book she was convinced the main character was just on a big drug trip and hallucinating the whole thing.
A couple of us did take something away from the book, I took away a strong interest in the works of Sappho, and one of the other members took away a deeper understanding of a past friend whose behaviour she recognised in some of the characters in the book.
I think we’re going for something a little less controversial next month
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Roland Emmerich does big budget disaster flicks as well as Dairylea does cheese. However, some of his most recent attempts to dominate the box office have been panned by viewers and critics alike, who say that he has become too reliant on special effects.
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Unfortunately, those critics better look away now, as his new film is the biggest yet.
2012 takes place, well, in 2012 for the most part and features an array of big Hollywood names attracted none the less by the huge box office forecasts for the film. The premise is simple; here comes the end of the world and god should we run!
With a reported budget of over $200m which is more than Michael Bay spent on his worldwide smash Transformers: Revenge of the fallen, Emmerich was certainly able to splash out on some eye popping CGI.
2012 reads like The Day After Tomorrow on a steroid, which is no bad thing, but that film had some hideously underdeveloped characters and lacked the depth needed to allow viewers to share compassion for the people who had been affected by the global crisis.
Thankfully it seems that Emmerich has learnt his lesson here and has provided us with a back-story and it comes in many different forms. Thandie Newton and Danny Glover play president’s daughter and president respectively, a great deal of emotion has gone into writing these two characters and their on-screen scenes together, albeit a small amount, are wonderful.
John Cusack and Amanda Peet play divorced parents Jackson and Kate, only united by the love they share for their two young children and predictably later on in the film, a few deeper emotions. Unfortunately these two share no chemistry together and their on-screen scenes are flawed as a result.
2012 doesn’t have a huge deal of character development but it does improve on what was seen in The Day After Tomorrow and more recently, 10,000BC, with a deeper understanding of the characters. It ultimately succeeds in making the viewers share compassion for even the heartless characters in the film.
Moving on to the saving grace of all disaster films; the special effects, fans of major cities being destroyed are going to be pleased here with some eye-watering action pieces really showing why perhaps Emmerich overshadows even Michael Bay and has become the king of destroying anything that can be destroyed. There are a few questionable scenes, which look rather less than realistic, but this is a small point that doesn’t need to be taken into account.
Whilst all this may seem excellent, it all feels familiar, it’s all been seen and done before, so in reality 2012 adds nothing new to the genre which is unfortunate because it really is an excellent film.
Overall, 2012 is a mouth-watering treat in cinema engineering, apart from some lapses in scientific accuracy and some shaky special effects; it surpasses The Day After Tomorrow and similar disaster films by sheer depth. On the downside it adds nothing new to the formula, but if you want sheer popcorn fodder then please, look no further.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/2012-2009/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Martian (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Ridley Scott's best film since Alien
It’s safe to say that Ridley Scott knows his way around a camera. From Alien to Gladiator, the director has brought to the silver screen some of the greatest films of all time, heck even Prometheus wasn’t that bad in a muddled kind of way.
Now, after the underwhelming Exodus: Gods & Kings, Scott returns to the director’s chair doing what he does best, sci-fi. But is The Martian as good as his earlier works?
Thankfully, the answer is yes and The Martian proves how good the director can be when he’s given the right material to work with. Andy Weir’s 2011 novel of the same name lends a good starting point and Scott ends up with his best film since 1979’s masterpiece, Alien – that’s no joke.
Matt Damon stars as Mark Wateny, an astronaut and botanist left stranded on Mars after a mission goes horribly wrong. After being left behind by his colleagues, played by talent including Jessica Chastain (The Hurt Locker) and Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Mark must find a way to survive on the red planet until a rescue operation can reach him – years later.
Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover and Jeff Daniels also star as NASA directors, scientists and astrophysicists. Despite their limited screen time, each brings something to the table with a spirited performance.
Scott directs The Martian with a huge amount of confidence, clearly helped by his time on Alien and Prometheus, and his cinematography is absolute perfection. Never has Mars looked this good on film. The desolate, arid landscape is breath-taking and the numerous aerial shots that feature Damon’s character only add to the emptiness.
The special effects too are wonderful. CGI is mixed with amazing practical props that integrate so well together that it’s impossible to tell the difference. The numerous spacecraft, living quarters and vehicles all feel so real and continue to add more credibility to The Martian’s cause.
Damon is also second-to-none and over the course of the film develops new personality traits, all due to the intense stress of being stranded 50 million miles away from Earth. The film lives and dies on his efforts and thankfully, the ever-reliable actor gives one of his best performances in years.
Unfortunately, Jessica Chastain doesn’t have too much to do until the finale and feels a little side-lined – she has won an Oscar after all, though Damon’s magnetic presence is enough to forgive some of the shortcomings in other characters.
The script is, on the whole, very good indeed. Despite only featuring one character for the majority of its 140 minute run-time, The Martian is funny, witty and helped by a fantastic disco soundtrack that has hits from the likes of ABBA dotted about.
Overall, The Martian is sci-fi film-making at its peak. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautiful looking and deeply involving film that features the very best in special effects and scientific accuracy. With Matt Damon’s dry humour and emotional depth, it’s a winner all round.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/04/ridley-scotts-best-film-since-alien-the-martian-review/
Now, after the underwhelming Exodus: Gods & Kings, Scott returns to the director’s chair doing what he does best, sci-fi. But is The Martian as good as his earlier works?
Thankfully, the answer is yes and The Martian proves how good the director can be when he’s given the right material to work with. Andy Weir’s 2011 novel of the same name lends a good starting point and Scott ends up with his best film since 1979’s masterpiece, Alien – that’s no joke.
Matt Damon stars as Mark Wateny, an astronaut and botanist left stranded on Mars after a mission goes horribly wrong. After being left behind by his colleagues, played by talent including Jessica Chastain (The Hurt Locker) and Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Mark must find a way to survive on the red planet until a rescue operation can reach him – years later.
Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover and Jeff Daniels also star as NASA directors, scientists and astrophysicists. Despite their limited screen time, each brings something to the table with a spirited performance.
Scott directs The Martian with a huge amount of confidence, clearly helped by his time on Alien and Prometheus, and his cinematography is absolute perfection. Never has Mars looked this good on film. The desolate, arid landscape is breath-taking and the numerous aerial shots that feature Damon’s character only add to the emptiness.
The special effects too are wonderful. CGI is mixed with amazing practical props that integrate so well together that it’s impossible to tell the difference. The numerous spacecraft, living quarters and vehicles all feel so real and continue to add more credibility to The Martian’s cause.
Damon is also second-to-none and over the course of the film develops new personality traits, all due to the intense stress of being stranded 50 million miles away from Earth. The film lives and dies on his efforts and thankfully, the ever-reliable actor gives one of his best performances in years.
Unfortunately, Jessica Chastain doesn’t have too much to do until the finale and feels a little side-lined – she has won an Oscar after all, though Damon’s magnetic presence is enough to forgive some of the shortcomings in other characters.
The script is, on the whole, very good indeed. Despite only featuring one character for the majority of its 140 minute run-time, The Martian is funny, witty and helped by a fantastic disco soundtrack that has hits from the likes of ABBA dotted about.
Overall, The Martian is sci-fi film-making at its peak. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautiful looking and deeply involving film that features the very best in special effects and scientific accuracy. With Matt Damon’s dry humour and emotional depth, it’s a winner all round.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/04/ridley-scotts-best-film-since-alien-the-martian-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Terminator Genisys (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Not a complete disaster
Sequels and reboots are making up the bulk of 2015’s cinematic offerings. With films added to franchises like Jurassic Park, Star Wars and James Bond, it was always going to be tough for others to make much of a dent.
It’s been six years since Christian Bale took over lead billing from Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Terminator series in the critically panned Terminator Salvation. But director Alan Taylor (Thor: the Dark World), a newcomer to the sci-fi adventure series, resurrects the franchise with Terminator Genisys. But is it worth a watch?
Acting as a reboot and a sequel, the film follows the story of a young Kyle Reece (Jai Courtney), sent back in time by John Connor (Jason Clarke) to protect his mother Sarah, played by Game of Thrones’ Emilia Clarke. His aim is to stop the war before it even begins.
The duo are joined on their travels by the naturally charismatic Arnold Schwarzenegger who is one of the only highlights in a film full of soulless set-pieces, meaningless dialogue and a sickening sense of nostalgia.
Genisys constantly reminds you of the brilliance radiating from James Cameron’s first two films. Herein lies the problem, this sequel has none of the soul or charm of its predecessors with the homages coming across as insulting attempts to cash in on the series.
Even the iconic “I’ll be back” phrase is shoehorned into an awkward position where it doesn’t really make much sense.
And there we move onto the second issue. It makes hardly any sense at all. With continuity errors abound, Genisys relies on your knowledge of Terminator and Judgement Day being in tip-top shape, and after more than two decades it’s safe to say the majority of people will need a refresher course first.
The set pieces are, on the whole, glorious and despite being slightly overlong at 126 minutes, Genisys is a well-paced film without a boring moment to its name. It’s just a shame the plot doesn’t make more of an impact.
It feels like the characters are stuck in a video game, with a climactic action piece signalling the next level, moving on up until the obligatory big-boss fight that makes a further sequel seem incredibly likely.
Emilia Clarke is well-worth noting however. Despite being more used to being in the company of dragons rather than robots, she plays her character well and steps into Linda Hamilton’s shoes with ease. The casting is spot on here with Clarke having more than a whiff of Hamilton in her appearance.
The rest of the cast, bar Schwarzenegger fail to make an impression with Jai Courtney’s character proving particularly dull.
Overall, Terminator Genisys isn’t a complete disaster but comes close to being a write off. The action pieces are thrilling but a lack of soul, comprehension and individuality ensures it’ll end up being forgotten once 2015 is over.
With a sequel almost definitely on the cards, all fans of the franchise can hope for is a film worthy of James Cameron’s brilliant original – and this is not it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/05/not-a-complete-disaster-terminator-genisys-review/
It’s been six years since Christian Bale took over lead billing from Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Terminator series in the critically panned Terminator Salvation. But director Alan Taylor (Thor: the Dark World), a newcomer to the sci-fi adventure series, resurrects the franchise with Terminator Genisys. But is it worth a watch?
Acting as a reboot and a sequel, the film follows the story of a young Kyle Reece (Jai Courtney), sent back in time by John Connor (Jason Clarke) to protect his mother Sarah, played by Game of Thrones’ Emilia Clarke. His aim is to stop the war before it even begins.
The duo are joined on their travels by the naturally charismatic Arnold Schwarzenegger who is one of the only highlights in a film full of soulless set-pieces, meaningless dialogue and a sickening sense of nostalgia.
Genisys constantly reminds you of the brilliance radiating from James Cameron’s first two films. Herein lies the problem, this sequel has none of the soul or charm of its predecessors with the homages coming across as insulting attempts to cash in on the series.
Even the iconic “I’ll be back” phrase is shoehorned into an awkward position where it doesn’t really make much sense.
And there we move onto the second issue. It makes hardly any sense at all. With continuity errors abound, Genisys relies on your knowledge of Terminator and Judgement Day being in tip-top shape, and after more than two decades it’s safe to say the majority of people will need a refresher course first.
The set pieces are, on the whole, glorious and despite being slightly overlong at 126 minutes, Genisys is a well-paced film without a boring moment to its name. It’s just a shame the plot doesn’t make more of an impact.
It feels like the characters are stuck in a video game, with a climactic action piece signalling the next level, moving on up until the obligatory big-boss fight that makes a further sequel seem incredibly likely.
Emilia Clarke is well-worth noting however. Despite being more used to being in the company of dragons rather than robots, she plays her character well and steps into Linda Hamilton’s shoes with ease. The casting is spot on here with Clarke having more than a whiff of Hamilton in her appearance.
The rest of the cast, bar Schwarzenegger fail to make an impression with Jai Courtney’s character proving particularly dull.
Overall, Terminator Genisys isn’t a complete disaster but comes close to being a write off. The action pieces are thrilling but a lack of soul, comprehension and individuality ensures it’ll end up being forgotten once 2015 is over.
With a sequel almost definitely on the cards, all fans of the franchise can hope for is a film worthy of James Cameron’s brilliant original – and this is not it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/05/not-a-complete-disaster-terminator-genisys-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Rhino Hero in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
What’s that on top of that building? It’s a…..rhino? Yes – you’re not hallucinating! Your neighborhood caped-crusader is indeed none other than Rhino Hero! Although not necessarily the most nimble of superheroes, he always gives 100% when it comes to protecting his people!
Rhino Hero is a dexterity-based game of literal hand management in which players are trying to use their cards to build the tallest tower possible. In simple terms, picture a ‘Jenga’ of sorts mixed with building a house of cards – instead of removing lower tiles and adding them to the top, though, you’re just adding cards to the narrow tower in an attempt to build the highest possible building for our superhero to traverse! The game is very easy to learn, simple to play, and entertaining for all involved! Here’s how it works: All players start with a hand of 5 roof cards. Each player, on their turn, will first place wall cards (as indicated) on the previously played roof card. Once that is done, the active player will then choose a roof card from their hand to play on top of the newly ‘built’ walls. Play continues until either one player has played all of their roof cards, or until a player causes the tower to fall over! Dexterity is important – how steady can you keep your hand as you build the tower? But strategy is key too – some roof tiles allow players to take special actions (play an additional roof card, reverse turn order, etc.), so timing your use of these powers is essential to success! Do you have the steadiness and strategy necessary to help our Hero on his quest for justice? Or will you end up as the clumsy sidekick who ruins the plan?
I thoroughly enjoy playing Rhino Hero. It’s such a fun and lighthearted little game that I can’t help but smile every time I play! One reason it’s so great is that it is extremely simple to learn, teach, and play. Playing with new players? Try Rhino Hero. Playing with children? Try Rhino Hero. Need something short and light to play between big games? Try Rhino Hero. It’s just a nice breathe of fresh air and I am almost always down to give it a couple of plays!
Another reason why I like Rhino Hero is that it’s more than just a dexterity game. Yes, the brunt of this game is centered around carefully building the tallest tower possible, but the card abilities take it to the next level. It adds an element of strategy that keeps players engaged beyond just needing a steady hand. How can you use your cards to best benefit you, or best block your opponents? It all depends on your current roof cards, so every game can require a different strategy!
If you’re looking for a short, light game, I hope you’ll consider Rhino Hero. It’s not the most strategic or cut-throat game out there, but it will definitely keep you engaged until the end – with pumping adrenaline and shaky hands (for me, at least). Purple Phoenix Games gives Rhino Hero a rhinoriffic 16 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/rhino-hero-review/
Rhino Hero is a dexterity-based game of literal hand management in which players are trying to use their cards to build the tallest tower possible. In simple terms, picture a ‘Jenga’ of sorts mixed with building a house of cards – instead of removing lower tiles and adding them to the top, though, you’re just adding cards to the narrow tower in an attempt to build the highest possible building for our superhero to traverse! The game is very easy to learn, simple to play, and entertaining for all involved! Here’s how it works: All players start with a hand of 5 roof cards. Each player, on their turn, will first place wall cards (as indicated) on the previously played roof card. Once that is done, the active player will then choose a roof card from their hand to play on top of the newly ‘built’ walls. Play continues until either one player has played all of their roof cards, or until a player causes the tower to fall over! Dexterity is important – how steady can you keep your hand as you build the tower? But strategy is key too – some roof tiles allow players to take special actions (play an additional roof card, reverse turn order, etc.), so timing your use of these powers is essential to success! Do you have the steadiness and strategy necessary to help our Hero on his quest for justice? Or will you end up as the clumsy sidekick who ruins the plan?
I thoroughly enjoy playing Rhino Hero. It’s such a fun and lighthearted little game that I can’t help but smile every time I play! One reason it’s so great is that it is extremely simple to learn, teach, and play. Playing with new players? Try Rhino Hero. Playing with children? Try Rhino Hero. Need something short and light to play between big games? Try Rhino Hero. It’s just a nice breathe of fresh air and I am almost always down to give it a couple of plays!
Another reason why I like Rhino Hero is that it’s more than just a dexterity game. Yes, the brunt of this game is centered around carefully building the tallest tower possible, but the card abilities take it to the next level. It adds an element of strategy that keeps players engaged beyond just needing a steady hand. How can you use your cards to best benefit you, or best block your opponents? It all depends on your current roof cards, so every game can require a different strategy!
If you’re looking for a short, light game, I hope you’ll consider Rhino Hero. It’s not the most strategic or cut-throat game out there, but it will definitely keep you engaged until the end – with pumping adrenaline and shaky hands (for me, at least). Purple Phoenix Games gives Rhino Hero a rhinoriffic 16 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/rhino-hero-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated My Husband's Wife in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Lily marries her husband, Ed, only six months after they meet. Lily's adolescence has been marked by family tragedy, and she's determined to move on. But as soon as she and Ed return from their Italian honeymoon, Lily is thrown into her first murder case as a solicitor. She meets her strange client, Joe, accused of murdering his girlfriend. Lily feels an odd affinity for Joe. Soon she is consumed by his case--and Joe himself. Meanwhile, Lily's neighbor, Carla is struggling to find her footing at school. Only nine, she feels like an outsider there, where the kids tease her for being different and fatherless. Lily and Ed become involved in Carla's life--watching her occasionally for her mother--but they have no idea how entwined their lives will become.
This novel is not exactly suspenseful (we're not truly solving a crime, but instead looking into the complex lives of our characters--which albeit may lead to some sort of crimes at times), but I still found it compulsively readable, consuming it in about 2 days. Lily is a unreliable narrator and as such, bits and pieces of her story unfold throughout the book, making us question exactly how much she's told us--and its veracity. There are certainly some "wow" moments as particular plot points are revealed; <i>I appreciated Corry's ability to surprise me early on.</I> (Even if some of these "wow" moments didn't really seem to come up again, or be completely developed into the overall thread of the narrative.)
The novel is definitely a rumination on marriage, faithfulness, and family. The alternating chapters between Lily and Carla help add some heightened tension to the plot, as does an eventual fast forward in time. None of our main characters are particularly sympathetic, but they get into your head quite effectively. The story is far more character-driven and emotional than I expected, yet there are still those "wow" moments I mentioned before. Some of the pieces fit together quite well; others not so much. There's a lot to weave in: Lily's first murder case and her pushy client, Joe; Lily's past; Lily and Ed's son; Carla and her mother; and more. Collectively, these characters bring a great deal of secrets and baggage.
I didn't find the ending completely surprising, as the novel sort of builds up to it, but it's still interesting and intriguing. I enjoyed how all the characters were interrelated and that the novel seemed focused on looking into what made them "tick." I won't lie, though, it did seem like something was missing at times: a piece of plot somewhere or something more to propel the story along. It's hard to describe, but it's almost as if the book just sort of happened, and you're like oh yeah, of course, yes, I see. By the end, nothing was really shocking, per se.
Still, I found the book incredibly readable and oddly fascinating. 3 stars.
<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 novel is not exactly suspenseful (we're not truly solving a crime, but instead looking into the complex lives of our characters--which albeit may lead to some sort of crimes at times), but I still found it compulsively readable, consuming it in about 2 days. Lily is a unreliable narrator and as such, bits and pieces of her story unfold throughout the book, making us question exactly how much she's told us--and its veracity. There are certainly some "wow" moments as particular plot points are revealed; <i>I appreciated Corry's ability to surprise me early on.</I> (Even if some of these "wow" moments didn't really seem to come up again, or be completely developed into the overall thread of the narrative.)
The novel is definitely a rumination on marriage, faithfulness, and family. The alternating chapters between Lily and Carla help add some heightened tension to the plot, as does an eventual fast forward in time. None of our main characters are particularly sympathetic, but they get into your head quite effectively. The story is far more character-driven and emotional than I expected, yet there are still those "wow" moments I mentioned before. Some of the pieces fit together quite well; others not so much. There's a lot to weave in: Lily's first murder case and her pushy client, Joe; Lily's past; Lily and Ed's son; Carla and her mother; and more. Collectively, these characters bring a great deal of secrets and baggage.
I didn't find the ending completely surprising, as the novel sort of builds up to it, but it's still interesting and intriguing. I enjoyed how all the characters were interrelated and that the novel seemed focused on looking into what made them "tick." I won't lie, though, it did seem like something was missing at times: a piece of plot somewhere or something more to propel the story along. It's hard to describe, but it's almost as if the book just sort of happened, and you're like oh yeah, of course, yes, I see. By the end, nothing was really shocking, per se.
Still, I found the book incredibly readable and oddly fascinating. 3 stars.
<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>;
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Wrinkle in Time (2018) in Movies
Mar 25, 2018
Need to iron out this Wrinkle
The target audience for Ava DuVernay's adaptation of the 1962 classic novel A WRINKLE IN TIME are youth ages 10-14.
I am not a youth ages 10-14.
A WRINKLE IN TIME follows the story of Meg, a young girl who's father has gone missing. With the help of mysterious figures Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who, Meg goes in searching for her father - through space and time - and ends up helping to save the universe in the process.
As Directed by DuVernay (SELMA), this WRINKLE is fantastical in all ways, starting with the visuals I don't know how much was spent on this film, but all of it is on the screen as the images - and imagery - are fascinating to look at, the costumes are unique (to say the least) and the story is simple enough for even a young person to follow.
And that might be enough to hold the attention of a 10-14 youth - it wasn't enough for me.
If you start to really follow the plot (what there was of it) and the intentions in the scenes, items start to not add up at all. While I understood Meg's motivations - to find her Dad - well enough, NONE of the other character's motivations - and intentions - were clear, or made sense. At one point, a character turns from good to bad (or was it vica-versa) and it just didn't make any sense.
I think a lot of this issue was the 3 big stars that were cast as the benevolent overseers for Meg's journey. Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kahling and, yes, Oprah Winfrey as Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which (respectively). Their role in this adventure (I guess) is to guide and help Meg on her adventure, so they were supposed to be loving, caring and gentle with just a hint of secretness (so, I guess that Meg can figure things out for herself - kind of like Glinda the Good Witch in the Wizard of Oz). But, instead, they come off as smug, annoying know-it-alls who are purposely keeping key information from this young girl - if I was around, I would have called the police on them. Also...they all seemed to be acting in their own movies, so their styles just didn't mesh, as well as the acting styles of other "stars" like Michael Pena and (especially) Zach Galifinakas - I don't know what they heck he was doing, but Director DuVernay did a poor job of reigning him in or helping him to create any kind of semblance of character.
A fantastical feature with eye-popping visuals and, I'm afraid, poorly written, acted and directed. This might be enough for an enjoyable afternoon in the theater for the target audience.
It wasn't for me - and, I think, my front runner for WORST FILM OF 2018.
Letter Grade C (for the visuals and the always appealing performance of Chris Pine, who - I have to admit - I have a man crush on).
4 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I am not a youth ages 10-14.
A WRINKLE IN TIME follows the story of Meg, a young girl who's father has gone missing. With the help of mysterious figures Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who, Meg goes in searching for her father - through space and time - and ends up helping to save the universe in the process.
As Directed by DuVernay (SELMA), this WRINKLE is fantastical in all ways, starting with the visuals I don't know how much was spent on this film, but all of it is on the screen as the images - and imagery - are fascinating to look at, the costumes are unique (to say the least) and the story is simple enough for even a young person to follow.
And that might be enough to hold the attention of a 10-14 youth - it wasn't enough for me.
If you start to really follow the plot (what there was of it) and the intentions in the scenes, items start to not add up at all. While I understood Meg's motivations - to find her Dad - well enough, NONE of the other character's motivations - and intentions - were clear, or made sense. At one point, a character turns from good to bad (or was it vica-versa) and it just didn't make any sense.
I think a lot of this issue was the 3 big stars that were cast as the benevolent overseers for Meg's journey. Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kahling and, yes, Oprah Winfrey as Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which (respectively). Their role in this adventure (I guess) is to guide and help Meg on her adventure, so they were supposed to be loving, caring and gentle with just a hint of secretness (so, I guess that Meg can figure things out for herself - kind of like Glinda the Good Witch in the Wizard of Oz). But, instead, they come off as smug, annoying know-it-alls who are purposely keeping key information from this young girl - if I was around, I would have called the police on them. Also...they all seemed to be acting in their own movies, so their styles just didn't mesh, as well as the acting styles of other "stars" like Michael Pena and (especially) Zach Galifinakas - I don't know what they heck he was doing, but Director DuVernay did a poor job of reigning him in or helping him to create any kind of semblance of character.
A fantastical feature with eye-popping visuals and, I'm afraid, poorly written, acted and directed. This might be enough for an enjoyable afternoon in the theater for the target audience.
It wasn't for me - and, I think, my front runner for WORST FILM OF 2018.
Letter Grade C (for the visuals and the always appealing performance of Chris Pine, who - I have to admit - I have a man crush on).
4 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)