Search
Search results
StickyStudy Japanese
Education and Productivity
App
** Now with a kanji writing trainer and native-speaker audio ** The #1 Japanese flashcard app. ...
Dressbox — your closet organizer.
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
Do you want to be more organized and even more attractive? Now it is possible with e-wardrobe...
Planescape: Torment
Games
1.0
Rate It
App
Reviewers say: "Planescape: Torment is a wonderful game, and its Enhanced Edition is a splendid,...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Ama (21 KP) rated Detroit (2017) in Movies
Sep 11, 2017
Shattering
The first couple of questions when writing a review here are What's good? and What's bad?
Now, as you've seen I have given this film a full score, but I could not for the life of me put into a sentence what was good about it. It's not a nice film. Nothing about it is good. Except the way it makes you feel with it. But then even that is not a good thing. It's ugly.
I watched Detroit yesterday at the local cinema. I had seen the trailer, knew it was gonna be a tearjerker, knew I would hate the world and myself after watching it.
What I realised is that I completely underestimated the film.
About half an hour to an hour in all I wanted to do was to turn it off. I had an urge to just turn the cinema off, go home and potentially have some chocolate.
It wasn't the fact that the film was bad (I repeat, I gave it a full score), nor was it surprising narrative (again, I had seen the trailer and my tiny bit of historical knowledge filled in the gaps), but something in the way it was presented somehow evoked that feeling of wanting it to go away.
When I walked out of the cinema and forced myself to think about it, I realised a couple of things (all of which eventually made me come to the conclusion that that might have been deliberate).
First of all that film was lit like a feature film and shot like a documentary. This means that watching it, my brain was trying to fool me into thinking this was real a lot more than it usually would. It's film like a documentary, so it's a documentary so this is exactly what must have happened, right? There was a camera at the scene, right?
Well, of course there wasn't. Of course it was still a feature film and of course before the credit it was even stated that besides the testimonies of the parties involved, there was still dramatic licence taken. But that didn't change the fact that it shook me. It shook me because that little shake of the camera that was a little more intense that I was used to and that little zoom every now and then to get closer to an action as though the camera had only just noticed it all lead to that convincing idea of this being real and having happened exactly as I was seeing it.
The acting was splendid. Again, upon contemplating the film, I wondered what it was like for all of these black people (the term used deliberately) to play these roles, having grown up in that country themselves. I wondered what it was like for Will Poulter to become an asshole from the work 'Action!' and while that isn't any different than any other set, somehow, in Detroit, it seemed like so much bigger a deal. On this note, kudos to all the actors in this piece. There was none of you that felt out of place or irrelevant. Each of you portrayed a character dealing with the situation at hand differently and on a spectrum that showed how truly diverse humans are - even if united in a cause, be it on the white side or the black.
I could go on for hours (which I did, with the friend I went to see it with) about how this film made me feel and how much insecurity in the current world it made me feel, but there is no point in doing that. Feelings are best felt, rather than read so just watch it and I'm sure you'll understand.
I do want to say this though:
This film made me realise that the world we live in today is not the product from its past, but rather a work in progress towards what is to come.
I in no way mean that I did not know that previously, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding.
On this note, this film is not for the faint hearted but it is one of those important films that need to be watched at the moment.
Now, as you've seen I have given this film a full score, but I could not for the life of me put into a sentence what was good about it. It's not a nice film. Nothing about it is good. Except the way it makes you feel with it. But then even that is not a good thing. It's ugly.
I watched Detroit yesterday at the local cinema. I had seen the trailer, knew it was gonna be a tearjerker, knew I would hate the world and myself after watching it.
What I realised is that I completely underestimated the film.
About half an hour to an hour in all I wanted to do was to turn it off. I had an urge to just turn the cinema off, go home and potentially have some chocolate.
It wasn't the fact that the film was bad (I repeat, I gave it a full score), nor was it surprising narrative (again, I had seen the trailer and my tiny bit of historical knowledge filled in the gaps), but something in the way it was presented somehow evoked that feeling of wanting it to go away.
When I walked out of the cinema and forced myself to think about it, I realised a couple of things (all of which eventually made me come to the conclusion that that might have been deliberate).
First of all that film was lit like a feature film and shot like a documentary. This means that watching it, my brain was trying to fool me into thinking this was real a lot more than it usually would. It's film like a documentary, so it's a documentary so this is exactly what must have happened, right? There was a camera at the scene, right?
Well, of course there wasn't. Of course it was still a feature film and of course before the credit it was even stated that besides the testimonies of the parties involved, there was still dramatic licence taken. But that didn't change the fact that it shook me. It shook me because that little shake of the camera that was a little more intense that I was used to and that little zoom every now and then to get closer to an action as though the camera had only just noticed it all lead to that convincing idea of this being real and having happened exactly as I was seeing it.
The acting was splendid. Again, upon contemplating the film, I wondered what it was like for all of these black people (the term used deliberately) to play these roles, having grown up in that country themselves. I wondered what it was like for Will Poulter to become an asshole from the work 'Action!' and while that isn't any different than any other set, somehow, in Detroit, it seemed like so much bigger a deal. On this note, kudos to all the actors in this piece. There was none of you that felt out of place or irrelevant. Each of you portrayed a character dealing with the situation at hand differently and on a spectrum that showed how truly diverse humans are - even if united in a cause, be it on the white side or the black.
I could go on for hours (which I did, with the friend I went to see it with) about how this film made me feel and how much insecurity in the current world it made me feel, but there is no point in doing that. Feelings are best felt, rather than read so just watch it and I'm sure you'll understand.
I do want to say this though:
This film made me realise that the world we live in today is not the product from its past, but rather a work in progress towards what is to come.
I in no way mean that I did not know that previously, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding.
On this note, this film is not for the faint hearted but it is one of those important films that need to be watched at the moment.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Dead Perfect in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Summary: Shannah is going to die. She has a blood disease that none of the doctors can identify, and she only has months to live. She’s on her last month, possibly her last week… she hates to think it’s her last day, but it sure feels like it. She has been watching the strange tall, dark (and hansom) man for several months, and is convinced that he is a vampire (though she’s not exactly sane when she makes that decision). She goes to him seeking immortality, but collapses in near death on his front porch. When she wakes up, she feels better. What did he do that healed her? She’s not a vampire, but even the doctors couldn’t heal her… then there’s the fact that she’s pretty sure that she’s falling in love with him. but Ronan’s healing doesn’t last forever… and Shannah has to make a hard choice.
Ronan is five hundred and thirteen years old. He has never loved anyone in his life, but when Shannah comes to his door he takes her into his house and begins to heal her in his own special way. But then he accidentally falls in love with her. That causes problems—when your mortal soulmate is going to die soon and she isn’t sure she wants to be a leach her whole life. If he changes her against her will, will she hate him forever? Are his only choices letting her die and losing her, or changing her and losing her?
And then there’s that whole problem with a vampire hunter tracking down Ronan… and trying to kill him.
My Thoughts—at first glimpse, this seemed so twilight-ish. But once I started reading it I got out of my vampire stereotype and enjoyed this book quite a lot. I was at the library and dying for a light-hearted vampire romance (because I was just in that mood) so I picked it up. It’s a very quick read, and very sweet.
The Plot—the plot moved quickly, though at one point a thought crossed my mind, “there isn’t much story here, how is the author dragging it out into 345 pages and is still managing to keep it interesting?” although the plot seemed a little simple, it held my attention very well.
The Characters—I loved the characters in this book. Shannah was depicted as a desperate-to-do-anything-to-keep-alive kind of girl, to the point that she was willing to live with a vampire. Ronan had so much passion and love for this poor girl that it made him endearing. I love how he’d always call her “love.” It was so sweet. Jim Hewitt, the hunter, was a character that you just didn’t like one bit—a strong willed jerk who, although he thought he was doing the right thing, even that he was doing it to keep Shannah safe, I didn’t like him and I felt sorry for him. Though, in my opinion, I liked what happened to him at the end ;)
The writing—There were a lot of really good descriptions in this book, I was able to see everything that the author said in beautiful detail. There wasn’t any graphic sex, though there were a few scenes at the end, but it was brief. There were a few re-used phrases in the book though, and that gets annoying. (My sister and I call this the JMG Syndrome, or “Jenny McGrady” syndrome, because of a series we read when we were younger. Jenny was always feeling “like she got slugged in the stomach”. The phrase was used several times in all fifteen books. It got old really fast.) Shannah had many kissed “brushed across her brow” in this book. But besides that, the writing was warm and welcoming.
My Recommendation: I recommend this book to anyone who likes a good paranormal romance, vampires, or just a romance in general. Ages 16+, only because of the frequency of sex at the end of the book (though I will say that the vampire held fast to abstinence, so that was encouraging.) there wasn’t any foul language, and I really liked that! I hate books that have so much language that I feel dirty reading it. But this book was very clean.
~Haleyknitz
Ronan is five hundred and thirteen years old. He has never loved anyone in his life, but when Shannah comes to his door he takes her into his house and begins to heal her in his own special way. But then he accidentally falls in love with her. That causes problems—when your mortal soulmate is going to die soon and she isn’t sure she wants to be a leach her whole life. If he changes her against her will, will she hate him forever? Are his only choices letting her die and losing her, or changing her and losing her?
And then there’s that whole problem with a vampire hunter tracking down Ronan… and trying to kill him.
My Thoughts—at first glimpse, this seemed so twilight-ish. But once I started reading it I got out of my vampire stereotype and enjoyed this book quite a lot. I was at the library and dying for a light-hearted vampire romance (because I was just in that mood) so I picked it up. It’s a very quick read, and very sweet.
The Plot—the plot moved quickly, though at one point a thought crossed my mind, “there isn’t much story here, how is the author dragging it out into 345 pages and is still managing to keep it interesting?” although the plot seemed a little simple, it held my attention very well.
The Characters—I loved the characters in this book. Shannah was depicted as a desperate-to-do-anything-to-keep-alive kind of girl, to the point that she was willing to live with a vampire. Ronan had so much passion and love for this poor girl that it made him endearing. I love how he’d always call her “love.” It was so sweet. Jim Hewitt, the hunter, was a character that you just didn’t like one bit—a strong willed jerk who, although he thought he was doing the right thing, even that he was doing it to keep Shannah safe, I didn’t like him and I felt sorry for him. Though, in my opinion, I liked what happened to him at the end ;)
The writing—There were a lot of really good descriptions in this book, I was able to see everything that the author said in beautiful detail. There wasn’t any graphic sex, though there were a few scenes at the end, but it was brief. There were a few re-used phrases in the book though, and that gets annoying. (My sister and I call this the JMG Syndrome, or “Jenny McGrady” syndrome, because of a series we read when we were younger. Jenny was always feeling “like she got slugged in the stomach”. The phrase was used several times in all fifteen books. It got old really fast.) Shannah had many kissed “brushed across her brow” in this book. But besides that, the writing was warm and welcoming.
My Recommendation: I recommend this book to anyone who likes a good paranormal romance, vampires, or just a romance in general. Ages 16+, only because of the frequency of sex at the end of the book (though I will say that the vampire held fast to abstinence, so that was encouraging.) there wasn’t any foul language, and I really liked that! I hate books that have so much language that I feel dirty reading it. But this book was very clean.
~Haleyknitz
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Sing Me to Sleep in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Summary: Beth is a ridiculously tall, horribly ugly girl suffering though high school. Her nickname is “the Beast.” She is bullied by everyone. Her face is scared and pimply and messed up, she was born that way and nothing works to get rid of it. The only people in the world that she has are her mother—who loves her fiercely—and her best friend since pre-school, Scott.
But then through the course of several unexpected events, Beth ends up with the solo in her choir. She goes from ugly and in the back rows to re-made, re-styled, and re-“faced” after laser surgery. Her choir gets a chance to go to a competition in Switzerland.
And she meets Derek. Derek is on one of the other teams, the biggest, best, most famous choir. He’s the hottest guy she’s ever met. And he’s in love with her.
But there’s something wrong with Derek. He won’t tell her what it is, and she’s scared to ask because every time she brings it up, he runs away.
And the fact that Scott has admitted that he’s in love with her—and she’s pretty sure she loves him too—isn’t making anything less complicated…
Review:
I enjoyed Sing Me To Sleep. Please realize and remember that. It kept me reading, it moved quickly. But there were a few things that drove me crazy while I read this and took away from the overall enjoyment.
The first was the writing. There’s a difference between a writing style, and writing crappy. 75% of the “sentences” in this book were fragments. No, I did not count the sentences and take a literal percentage, but that’s what it felt like. There were a lot of two or three word phrases stacked next to each other. That does not count as a writing style, it’s poor grammar. It was so distracting that I found myself annoyed and wanting to put it down.
The second was the romance. In the beginning, the romance between Derek and Beth was just too rushed. There were no meaningful conversations, there wasn’t much plot, there wasn’t much talking. There was a lot of “I love you’s” and a lot of tension and a lot of kissing (hot kissing, but just kissing none the less). Beth was convinced she was in love with him—and he with her—but their relationship was so shallow, that I expected him to dump her any minute (or vice versa). It didn’t feel real.
Near the end, it became a little more real after Derek’s secret came out and Beth began to feel a little different about him. For the sake of keeping this review spoiler-free, I won’t say much more than that. However because their “love” was built on such shaky ground in the first place, most of the end didn’t feel very real either. Beth didn’t know what love really meant until the very end of the book. Poor girl.
The third… sadly, the characters. I didn’t feel much of a connection to them. Believe it or not, the one character I related to most was Scott. He wasn’t even in most of the book—most of it was Beth and Derek—but Scott was the most realistic character (and I’m totally in love with him) and the character that I could understand the best. But Beth and Derek both… I just didn’t connect.
I feel really bad that I’ve complained so much. I also feel really sad that I didn’t love this one. But as a reviewer I promise to be honest, and this is how I feel. Again, as I said at the top, I enjoyed the book, it kept me reading though it wasn’t a sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of page-turner. But it was a bit of a let-down after all the 5-star or A+ reviews I’ve read for it. Don’t listen to just one opinion. Check out some other reviews for this one before you decide to believe me.
But then through the course of several unexpected events, Beth ends up with the solo in her choir. She goes from ugly and in the back rows to re-made, re-styled, and re-“faced” after laser surgery. Her choir gets a chance to go to a competition in Switzerland.
And she meets Derek. Derek is on one of the other teams, the biggest, best, most famous choir. He’s the hottest guy she’s ever met. And he’s in love with her.
But there’s something wrong with Derek. He won’t tell her what it is, and she’s scared to ask because every time she brings it up, he runs away.
And the fact that Scott has admitted that he’s in love with her—and she’s pretty sure she loves him too—isn’t making anything less complicated…
Review:
I enjoyed Sing Me To Sleep. Please realize and remember that. It kept me reading, it moved quickly. But there were a few things that drove me crazy while I read this and took away from the overall enjoyment.
The first was the writing. There’s a difference between a writing style, and writing crappy. 75% of the “sentences” in this book were fragments. No, I did not count the sentences and take a literal percentage, but that’s what it felt like. There were a lot of two or three word phrases stacked next to each other. That does not count as a writing style, it’s poor grammar. It was so distracting that I found myself annoyed and wanting to put it down.
The second was the romance. In the beginning, the romance between Derek and Beth was just too rushed. There were no meaningful conversations, there wasn’t much plot, there wasn’t much talking. There was a lot of “I love you’s” and a lot of tension and a lot of kissing (hot kissing, but just kissing none the less). Beth was convinced she was in love with him—and he with her—but their relationship was so shallow, that I expected him to dump her any minute (or vice versa). It didn’t feel real.
Near the end, it became a little more real after Derek’s secret came out and Beth began to feel a little different about him. For the sake of keeping this review spoiler-free, I won’t say much more than that. However because their “love” was built on such shaky ground in the first place, most of the end didn’t feel very real either. Beth didn’t know what love really meant until the very end of the book. Poor girl.
The third… sadly, the characters. I didn’t feel much of a connection to them. Believe it or not, the one character I related to most was Scott. He wasn’t even in most of the book—most of it was Beth and Derek—but Scott was the most realistic character (and I’m totally in love with him) and the character that I could understand the best. But Beth and Derek both… I just didn’t connect.
I feel really bad that I’ve complained so much. I also feel really sad that I didn’t love this one. But as a reviewer I promise to be honest, and this is how I feel. Again, as I said at the top, I enjoyed the book, it kept me reading though it wasn’t a sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of page-turner. But it was a bit of a let-down after all the 5-star or A+ reviews I’ve read for it. Don’t listen to just one opinion. Check out some other reviews for this one before you decide to believe me.
Mothergamer (1527 KP) rated The Green Hornet (2011) in Movies
Apr 3, 2019
I don't even have the words for how infuriated I am right now with The Green Hornet film. There's a small part of me that wishes I could just throw a brick at Seth Rogen's crotch right now, because he absolutely deserves it along with director Michael Gondry. That's right, the director of the film Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind which to me was a good movie is responsible for this equally terrible movie.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Handbook of Paranormal Powers in Books
Jun 2, 2019
I have always believed in the paranormal, but I am careful not to take everything at face value. When I picked up this book, I unfortunately took it at its face value, thinking that it was about how people developed these paranormal abilities and the things that they achieved with them.
But this book seems to have been written by a skeptic that disguised it as a book from a believer in the paranormal, which to say is a pretty clever way to sell a book when the belief in the paranormal is at an all time high. The author spends much of the book detailing people who have exhibited paranormal abilities just to quickly tear them down. I will say that Brian Haughton did a wonderful job on researching for this book, bringing up not only the history of paranormal abilities, but also self proclaimed psychics that readers may not have even heard of, such as Florence Cook, who had her abilities tested by none other than William Crookes( the discoverer of the element thallium).
Haughton's 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' should have been titled something else, mostly because it's a history lesson in ESP and also, obviously, from the point-of-view of a skeptic. Yet, it doesn't lack for reading by believers; one such part I found interesting was a part on dowsing- the supernatural ability to find hidden objects, substances, geographic features, or sometimes even people- which you may have seen someone doing by holding two rods to find underground water. This part was about when dowsing became popular in the seventeenth-century France, and was being considered 'evil': ". . .with the dowser Baroness de Beausoleil and her husband, a mining expert, journeying across Europe and allegedly locating ore deposits of iron, gold, and silver. The couple established a thriving mineral company, but when their methods of locating metal ores became known they were accused of practicing the 'black arts' and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. " Readers learn that it wasn't until the nineteenth century, with the rise of spiritualism, that dowsing was no longer considered 'evil.'
Another one that interested me concerned the comedian Andy Kaufman, and his pursuit to rid himself of a rare lung cancer with psychic healing: "In March 1984, US comedian Andy Kaufman traveled to the Philippines for a six- week course of psychic surgery after being diagnosed with a rare lung cancer. The surgeon, Jun Labo, performed the operation, and claimed that he had removed large cancerous tumors from Kaufman's body. On May 16, 1984, Kaufman died from renal failure as a consequence of a metastatic lung cancer. "
I hate, but also love this book, not because Haughton backs up all of the skeptic claims with scientific research and tests, but because he claimed this to be a handbook or paranormal powers. If you glance at the cover, just below the title is: 'discover the secrets of mind readers, mediums, and more' - this can be taken that it's written by someone who believes in the paranormal, as well as someone who may have had personal experiences with the unknown, but with that said, I did learn a lot about the history of paranormal powers as well as people I had never heard of.
To prove the skepticism in Haughton's writing, we can turn to page 173, where he writes about how to test whether or not a self-proclaimed psychic surgeon is real. But even before this page and throughout this book, Haughton explains someone doing an extraordinary thing only to quickly explain away why it was fake to begin with. The 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' reads a lot like a college thesis, that I found myself getting bored with the matter-of-fact tone. Some readers may enjoy reading essay-type books, but for me, it becomes repetitive enough that I don't remember much of the information I had just read.
Also, readers may come away with the feeling that Haughton doesn't care about the slight chance that some paranormal powers may be real, but instead he'd rather read about the scientific facts. I would only recommend this book to people who want to do a light reading on paranormal history, meaning mostly what made headlines in the news. For believers, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
But this book seems to have been written by a skeptic that disguised it as a book from a believer in the paranormal, which to say is a pretty clever way to sell a book when the belief in the paranormal is at an all time high. The author spends much of the book detailing people who have exhibited paranormal abilities just to quickly tear them down. I will say that Brian Haughton did a wonderful job on researching for this book, bringing up not only the history of paranormal abilities, but also self proclaimed psychics that readers may not have even heard of, such as Florence Cook, who had her abilities tested by none other than William Crookes( the discoverer of the element thallium).
Haughton's 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' should have been titled something else, mostly because it's a history lesson in ESP and also, obviously, from the point-of-view of a skeptic. Yet, it doesn't lack for reading by believers; one such part I found interesting was a part on dowsing- the supernatural ability to find hidden objects, substances, geographic features, or sometimes even people- which you may have seen someone doing by holding two rods to find underground water. This part was about when dowsing became popular in the seventeenth-century France, and was being considered 'evil': ". . .with the dowser Baroness de Beausoleil and her husband, a mining expert, journeying across Europe and allegedly locating ore deposits of iron, gold, and silver. The couple established a thriving mineral company, but when their methods of locating metal ores became known they were accused of practicing the 'black arts' and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. " Readers learn that it wasn't until the nineteenth century, with the rise of spiritualism, that dowsing was no longer considered 'evil.'
Another one that interested me concerned the comedian Andy Kaufman, and his pursuit to rid himself of a rare lung cancer with psychic healing: "In March 1984, US comedian Andy Kaufman traveled to the Philippines for a six- week course of psychic surgery after being diagnosed with a rare lung cancer. The surgeon, Jun Labo, performed the operation, and claimed that he had removed large cancerous tumors from Kaufman's body. On May 16, 1984, Kaufman died from renal failure as a consequence of a metastatic lung cancer. "
I hate, but also love this book, not because Haughton backs up all of the skeptic claims with scientific research and tests, but because he claimed this to be a handbook or paranormal powers. If you glance at the cover, just below the title is: 'discover the secrets of mind readers, mediums, and more' - this can be taken that it's written by someone who believes in the paranormal, as well as someone who may have had personal experiences with the unknown, but with that said, I did learn a lot about the history of paranormal powers as well as people I had never heard of.
To prove the skepticism in Haughton's writing, we can turn to page 173, where he writes about how to test whether or not a self-proclaimed psychic surgeon is real. But even before this page and throughout this book, Haughton explains someone doing an extraordinary thing only to quickly explain away why it was fake to begin with. The 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' reads a lot like a college thesis, that I found myself getting bored with the matter-of-fact tone. Some readers may enjoy reading essay-type books, but for me, it becomes repetitive enough that I don't remember much of the information I had just read.
Also, readers may come away with the feeling that Haughton doesn't care about the slight chance that some paranormal powers may be real, but instead he'd rather read about the scientific facts. I would only recommend this book to people who want to do a light reading on paranormal history, meaning mostly what made headlines in the news. For believers, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
I'm a celebrity... Get me out of here
It’s been 22 years since Joe Johnston thrilled cinemagoers with a little film called Jumanji. Starring the late, great Robin Williams, it has amassed a huge following over the years and has become nearly as loved as its leading star.
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/
What’s surprising given the film’s success is the lack of a sequel. For over 20 years the non-franchise stayed completely dormant until now. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle sees Columbia Pictures resurrect this classic property for a high-action, CGI-filled blockbuster. But is it actually any good?
Four high school kids discover an old video game console and are drawn into the game’s jungle setting, literally becoming the adult avatars they chose. What they discover is that you don’t just play Jumanji – you must survive it. To beat the game and return to the real world, they’ll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, discover what Alan Parrish left 20 years ago, and change the way they think about themselves – or they’ll be stuck in the game forever.
Considering the overwhelmingly negative response to the film’s first trailer, it’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces. The problem is, it really doesn’t feel anything like Jumanji and regularly feels like the producers down at Sony had dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else.
There’s only one reference to its now classic predecessor, an homage to Robin William’s Alan Parrish but this is such a fleeting indication of any connection to the 1995 film, it’s barely noticeable. The film may as well lose the Jumanji tag from its name and be done with it: of course that wouldn’t sell half as many tickets now would it?
Of the school-age characters, none of them make any impact before being sucked into Jumanji, now a video game, and director Jake Kasdan (Bad Teacher) wisely focusses on their avatar characters instead. Dwayne Johnson is always reliable and plays the fish-out-of-water nerd surprisingly well. He also has great chemistry with Kevin Hart and the two share some of the film’s best sequences.
Jack Black is hilarious as his inner female tries to break through at numerous points throughout the movie and Karen Gillan shows particular warmth as the awkward Martha. Nick Jonas also stars in a role originally destined for Tom Holland and continues to prove what a versatile actor he has become.
It’s a pleasant surprise to see an enjoyable romp that has likeable characters and some nicely filmed set pieces.
Jake Kasdan films the action confidently and with visual panache but the CGI at times is left wanting, disappointing in this day and age. A helicopter ride across a rhino-infested canyon is particularly fun to watch and the way in which the writers write the film around video game lore is exciting and makes for a pleasant distraction from an otherwise mediocre script.
What the film does have in abundance however is laughs. Indeed, they are of the Dairylea variety, cheesy, but sometimes that’s exactly what you need. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a very funny film that knows how to squeeze every last drop of humour from its writing.
It’s also very well paced. Apart from a few lapses in judgement where the screenwriters desperately try to make us feel emotion towards the characters – we don’t – the film really doesn’t have a boring moment to its name and at 119 minutes, that’s a real achievement.
Overall, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a film that is fun to watch, if a little lacking in originality. All the lead actors perform their roles well, with Jack Black being a particular highlight. Unfortunately, while I’m not usually one for sickly nostalgia, the film really needed to provide a few more tasteful references to its predecessor, especially considering its link to the wonderful Robin Williams.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/10/jumanji-welcome-to-the-jungle-review-im-a-celebrity-get-me-out-of-here/