Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
When news first arrived that the crash empire would be releasing a new game. The whole world went nuts. It was a childhood favourite for so many households across the world. It was rolled out onto the PS4 platform on the 30th of June 2017. It smashed pre sale records, with tons of people choosing to put a deposit down in order of not missing the game. It consists of three of the crash games; Crash Bandicoot, Cortex Strikes Back, and Warped. The three most iconic of the crash series. All three had a major face lift, which was going to be obvious due to sheer jump in technology and graphics we’ve had. Yet nothing about the actual game has really changed. The levels, characters, and sounds have all stayed the same. Here’s a review of what the game was like to play.
Game Play
The first thing that a lot of people pointed out is, the game is hard to play. Well, harder than when most of us were kids and attempting it. But this shouldn’t be classed as a negative. It added excitement to the game, and if anything, made game play last longer. The graphics were incredible. Everything was so sharp and defined, it really made the characters and scenery pop to life. It also sort of made the game easier to play. Although the levels were hard, moving through them was easy. There were no annoying glitches, the characters were extra responsive to movements, and it really just had a smoother feeling compared to its very older brother. This game was review on a standard PS4, the graphics would have been 10x better on a custom gaming pc, it would have been interesting to compare the difference.
The attention to detail that Vicarious Visions (the developer) has gone to is outstanding. One huge improvement is the enemies. In the first lot of the three games, the enemies were always so hard to kill. It is very noticeable that in the new series, enemies move more fluidly, and are easier to kill or dodge. There’s no lag what so ever during the game which is perfect. The sounds are also crisper, with additional noises such as feet crunching on the floor, or the wind blowing have been added. It doesn’t affect gameplay, but it’s a nice additional touch. The best of the three games is definitely Cortex Strikes Back, it’s much more fun, crash is able to move around better, and it’s just generally more engaging.
Characters
All of the original characters still appear in the new games. There’s Aku Aku, the mask that appears making the funny noise. Crush, Crunch, Coco, Doctor Neo Cortex to name but a few. As with the scenery of the game, they’ve all had a little face lift too. It’s so much easier to see the features of the character’s. They look so crisp and clear in the HD platform. They all play exactly the same role as they did in the beginning, and seeing them all together in a high definition view really offers something nostalgic. Crash still remains the main character throughout the game.
Price
The price of the game when first released was around $35-$55 depending on which store you got it from. It has now rapidly reduced to around $20-$30. There’s also cool collectable extras to take a look at. You can get model figures of most of the main crash characters from the internet. If you can collect all of them, they might be worth something a little more in the future!
Negatives
There’s only two negatives of this game. One being the fact it is only available on the PS4 platform. Many xbox lovers weren’t too happy about this, but at the same time, crash has always been on playstation. It wouldn’t be right to release it on all platforms. If they had done however, there profit could have been exponential compared to what it was. Although this didn’t have PS4 lover’s complaining. The second issue is just how damn hard the levels were. Yes it’s good to have a little bit of a challenge, but not three whole games worth of rock solid challenges. It did anger a lot of people, especially parents. The game was simply just too hard to play for some children. I think if they had the chance to do it again, they should have options that let you choose game play difficulty. That way it’ll be suitable for all ages. But even so, the game did need to be toned down a bit.
http://sknr.net/2017/10/11/crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy-review/
Game Play
The first thing that a lot of people pointed out is, the game is hard to play. Well, harder than when most of us were kids and attempting it. But this shouldn’t be classed as a negative. It added excitement to the game, and if anything, made game play last longer. The graphics were incredible. Everything was so sharp and defined, it really made the characters and scenery pop to life. It also sort of made the game easier to play. Although the levels were hard, moving through them was easy. There were no annoying glitches, the characters were extra responsive to movements, and it really just had a smoother feeling compared to its very older brother. This game was review on a standard PS4, the graphics would have been 10x better on a custom gaming pc, it would have been interesting to compare the difference.
The attention to detail that Vicarious Visions (the developer) has gone to is outstanding. One huge improvement is the enemies. In the first lot of the three games, the enemies were always so hard to kill. It is very noticeable that in the new series, enemies move more fluidly, and are easier to kill or dodge. There’s no lag what so ever during the game which is perfect. The sounds are also crisper, with additional noises such as feet crunching on the floor, or the wind blowing have been added. It doesn’t affect gameplay, but it’s a nice additional touch. The best of the three games is definitely Cortex Strikes Back, it’s much more fun, crash is able to move around better, and it’s just generally more engaging.
Characters
All of the original characters still appear in the new games. There’s Aku Aku, the mask that appears making the funny noise. Crush, Crunch, Coco, Doctor Neo Cortex to name but a few. As with the scenery of the game, they’ve all had a little face lift too. It’s so much easier to see the features of the character’s. They look so crisp and clear in the HD platform. They all play exactly the same role as they did in the beginning, and seeing them all together in a high definition view really offers something nostalgic. Crash still remains the main character throughout the game.
Price
The price of the game when first released was around $35-$55 depending on which store you got it from. It has now rapidly reduced to around $20-$30. There’s also cool collectable extras to take a look at. You can get model figures of most of the main crash characters from the internet. If you can collect all of them, they might be worth something a little more in the future!
Negatives
There’s only two negatives of this game. One being the fact it is only available on the PS4 platform. Many xbox lovers weren’t too happy about this, but at the same time, crash has always been on playstation. It wouldn’t be right to release it on all platforms. If they had done however, there profit could have been exponential compared to what it was. Although this didn’t have PS4 lover’s complaining. The second issue is just how damn hard the levels were. Yes it’s good to have a little bit of a challenge, but not three whole games worth of rock solid challenges. It did anger a lot of people, especially parents. The game was simply just too hard to play for some children. I think if they had the chance to do it again, they should have options that let you choose game play difficulty. That way it’ll be suitable for all ages. But even so, the game did need to be toned down a bit.
http://sknr.net/2017/10/11/crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Solar Walk 2 Ads+: Universe 3D
Reference and Education
App
Solar Walk 2 is a digital guide to our solar system and a new highly attractive way to explore the...
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated KOD by J. Cole in Music
Jun 7, 2019
J. Cole is a popular hip-hop lyricist out of Fayetteville, North Carolina. Not too long ago, he released his long-anticipated, self-produced, fifth studio album, entitled, “KOD”.
J. Cole – “KOD Trailer”
Cole revealed via Twitter that “KOD” stands for Kids on Drugs, King Overdosed, and Kill Our Demons. The rest of the album he leaves to our interpretation. Well, let’s begin.
INTRO
The album begins with caution. Jazz bellows underneath a female voice reciting uplifting words. Her message suggests listeners should make the right decisions (choose wisely) because the past (sand in an hourglass) can provide shelter for their demons.
Also, a way to a painless existence is provided. Those in pain must choose wisely, or make healthier decisions, to avoid being tormented by their past.
KOD
The title track showcases Cole’s Kids on Drugs braggadocios side. In verse one, he utilizes his carnal mind to reply to media/fans asking him a bunch of ‘how’ questions. But instead of being humble, Cole replies to his critics in an arrogant way.
The second verse disconnects from the first and goes into a random storytelling mode with intersecting ideas that jump from one subject to another.
The outro is noteworthy. It forms a bridge between Intro and KOD songs. Also, it ends on a thought-provoking note.
If love is indeed the strongest drug like Cole stated, then why isn’t it being chased after like the drugs listed above? Why aren’t more people getting high off love? The question then becomes…is love even a drug?
That depends on who you ask. But what we all will agree on, love is an invisible element that contributes to people being addicted to drugs? It’s a fact, a strong love for something breeds addiction, dependency, et cetera.
PHOTOGRAPH
Cole uses a 2018 rhyme pattern to address a woman he follows privately on social media. He’s addicted or loves to stalk the woman online, and it’s starting to mess with his health.
Cole always excels when he tells stories about him and a woman. Women are his go-to subject to rap about and he does a pretty good job on this song.
THE CUT OFF (FEAT. KILL EDWARD)
Cole isn’t too fond of doing features on his albums. But this time, he enlists his alter ego, kiLL edward, to help him say that Heaven is a mental mind state.
edward raps that he’s stuck in his fallen ways and that’s why he keeps falling down. That’s why he drinks alcohol and uses drugs to help him cope. But keep in mind that edward is actually Cole.
Cole raps about disloyal friends that owe him an apology and what he’s gonna do to them when they meet. But all the while, edward is in Cole’s mind telling him that drinking alcohol and using drugs will help numb his pain.
ATM
ATM is an energetically poppin’ single with replay value. It begins with the album’s theme—choose wisely.
Cole praises money like it’s biblical and even states that it solved every problem he had. But after counting up all the money, he concludes that you can’t take it with you when you die.
The Scott Lazer & Cole-directed video shows the King of Drugs chauffeuring a bunch of children riding on a drug float. The storyline is dope, reminiscent of a classic video from hip-hop’s golden era.
Also, Cole literally gives his arm and leg to purchase a vehicle. That transaction signifies what people are doing nowadays to accumulate material wealth. But keep in mind, chasing money will lead to your death or downfall. Message received.
MOTIV8
Motiv8 is a good track that features a sample from Junior M.A.F.I.A.’s “Get Money” single.
Cole encourages listeners to get high and get money, even though he just said that chasing money is detrimental to their health.
Verse 2 features one of Cole’s best lyrics and flow.
KEVIN’S HEART
Cole’s continues his lyrical crusade and touches on his favorite subject.
He raps about being in a committed relationship but admits to being an addict that’s addicted to cheating. He tries to fight the temptation and remain faithful but acknowledges that he’s fake for thinking that way.
BRACKETS
The song begins with a Richard Pryor comedy skit.
Cole speaks about being a millionaire and then he receives a phone call from Uncle Sam.
Verse 2 highlights Cole’s disgust with paying higher taxes now that he’s a millionaire.
ONCE AN ADDICT – INTERLUDE
Cole shines brightly on this song, which is reminiscent of Nas’ “Project Windows” single.
He addresses his mother’s battle with alcoholism. The reason why she drank—because Cole’s step-father had a baby with another woman. So, to cope with the pain, Cole’s mother started abusing alcohol.
With no one to turn to, she used to call to talk to Cole. But he didn’t like talking to her while she was drunk.
At the end of the song, Cole regrets being that way to his mother when she needed him the most.
FRIENDS (FEAT. KILL EDWARDS)
Cole finds solace in his alter ego and cops another bag of weed to smoke. Somehow, he needs it to cope and gets aggravated when he doesn’t smoke.
He takes this time to address his friends who aren’t motivated to succeed. He tells them several things they can blame their lack of motivation on. And ends it by saying that the blame game is also an addiction that people use to not get better.
Also, he raps about depression and drug addiction.
WINDOW PAIN – OUTRO
The song begins with a girl telling Cole about the time her cousin got shot. Cole is sad, listening to the girl with tears in his eyes.
Then Cole praises the Most High. He speaks about things he wanna do like killing the man that made his mother cry and seeing his granny on the other side.
The girl ends the song with a powerful message.
1985 – INTRO TO “THE FALL OFF”
Cole ends his KOD album in battle rap mode. He addresses Lil Pump for dissing him on Pump’s “F*ck J Cole” song.
Cole’s flow is melodic and his lyrics cut deep. He foretells Pump’s future and predicts the rapper will be on Love & Hip-Hop in five years. Also, Cole wished him good luck in his career.
CONCLUSION
J. Cole gets a big thumbs up for producing a solid album with no features. Also, his evergreen message of choosing wisely has to be applauded, especially nowadays when living recklessly is being rewarded.
Listeners have different options to cope with their pain. Using drugs and drinking alcohol are just two ways of doing so. But if you choose wisely, and pick a healthier way to ease your pain, your life will change for the better.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/j-cole-kod/
J. Cole – “KOD Trailer”
Cole revealed via Twitter that “KOD” stands for Kids on Drugs, King Overdosed, and Kill Our Demons. The rest of the album he leaves to our interpretation. Well, let’s begin.
INTRO
The album begins with caution. Jazz bellows underneath a female voice reciting uplifting words. Her message suggests listeners should make the right decisions (choose wisely) because the past (sand in an hourglass) can provide shelter for their demons.
Also, a way to a painless existence is provided. Those in pain must choose wisely, or make healthier decisions, to avoid being tormented by their past.
KOD
The title track showcases Cole’s Kids on Drugs braggadocios side. In verse one, he utilizes his carnal mind to reply to media/fans asking him a bunch of ‘how’ questions. But instead of being humble, Cole replies to his critics in an arrogant way.
The second verse disconnects from the first and goes into a random storytelling mode with intersecting ideas that jump from one subject to another.
The outro is noteworthy. It forms a bridge between Intro and KOD songs. Also, it ends on a thought-provoking note.
If love is indeed the strongest drug like Cole stated, then why isn’t it being chased after like the drugs listed above? Why aren’t more people getting high off love? The question then becomes…is love even a drug?
That depends on who you ask. But what we all will agree on, love is an invisible element that contributes to people being addicted to drugs? It’s a fact, a strong love for something breeds addiction, dependency, et cetera.
PHOTOGRAPH
Cole uses a 2018 rhyme pattern to address a woman he follows privately on social media. He’s addicted or loves to stalk the woman online, and it’s starting to mess with his health.
Cole always excels when he tells stories about him and a woman. Women are his go-to subject to rap about and he does a pretty good job on this song.
THE CUT OFF (FEAT. KILL EDWARD)
Cole isn’t too fond of doing features on his albums. But this time, he enlists his alter ego, kiLL edward, to help him say that Heaven is a mental mind state.
edward raps that he’s stuck in his fallen ways and that’s why he keeps falling down. That’s why he drinks alcohol and uses drugs to help him cope. But keep in mind that edward is actually Cole.
Cole raps about disloyal friends that owe him an apology and what he’s gonna do to them when they meet. But all the while, edward is in Cole’s mind telling him that drinking alcohol and using drugs will help numb his pain.
ATM
ATM is an energetically poppin’ single with replay value. It begins with the album’s theme—choose wisely.
Cole praises money like it’s biblical and even states that it solved every problem he had. But after counting up all the money, he concludes that you can’t take it with you when you die.
The Scott Lazer & Cole-directed video shows the King of Drugs chauffeuring a bunch of children riding on a drug float. The storyline is dope, reminiscent of a classic video from hip-hop’s golden era.
Also, Cole literally gives his arm and leg to purchase a vehicle. That transaction signifies what people are doing nowadays to accumulate material wealth. But keep in mind, chasing money will lead to your death or downfall. Message received.
MOTIV8
Motiv8 is a good track that features a sample from Junior M.A.F.I.A.’s “Get Money” single.
Cole encourages listeners to get high and get money, even though he just said that chasing money is detrimental to their health.
Verse 2 features one of Cole’s best lyrics and flow.
KEVIN’S HEART
Cole’s continues his lyrical crusade and touches on his favorite subject.
He raps about being in a committed relationship but admits to being an addict that’s addicted to cheating. He tries to fight the temptation and remain faithful but acknowledges that he’s fake for thinking that way.
BRACKETS
The song begins with a Richard Pryor comedy skit.
Cole speaks about being a millionaire and then he receives a phone call from Uncle Sam.
Verse 2 highlights Cole’s disgust with paying higher taxes now that he’s a millionaire.
ONCE AN ADDICT – INTERLUDE
Cole shines brightly on this song, which is reminiscent of Nas’ “Project Windows” single.
He addresses his mother’s battle with alcoholism. The reason why she drank—because Cole’s step-father had a baby with another woman. So, to cope with the pain, Cole’s mother started abusing alcohol.
With no one to turn to, she used to call to talk to Cole. But he didn’t like talking to her while she was drunk.
At the end of the song, Cole regrets being that way to his mother when she needed him the most.
FRIENDS (FEAT. KILL EDWARDS)
Cole finds solace in his alter ego and cops another bag of weed to smoke. Somehow, he needs it to cope and gets aggravated when he doesn’t smoke.
He takes this time to address his friends who aren’t motivated to succeed. He tells them several things they can blame their lack of motivation on. And ends it by saying that the blame game is also an addiction that people use to not get better.
Also, he raps about depression and drug addiction.
WINDOW PAIN – OUTRO
The song begins with a girl telling Cole about the time her cousin got shot. Cole is sad, listening to the girl with tears in his eyes.
Then Cole praises the Most High. He speaks about things he wanna do like killing the man that made his mother cry and seeing his granny on the other side.
The girl ends the song with a powerful message.
1985 – INTRO TO “THE FALL OFF”
Cole ends his KOD album in battle rap mode. He addresses Lil Pump for dissing him on Pump’s “F*ck J Cole” song.
Cole’s flow is melodic and his lyrics cut deep. He foretells Pump’s future and predicts the rapper will be on Love & Hip-Hop in five years. Also, Cole wished him good luck in his career.
CONCLUSION
J. Cole gets a big thumbs up for producing a solid album with no features. Also, his evergreen message of choosing wisely has to be applauded, especially nowadays when living recklessly is being rewarded.
Listeners have different options to cope with their pain. Using drugs and drinking alcohol are just two ways of doing so. But if you choose wisely, and pick a healthier way to ease your pain, your life will change for the better.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/j-cole-kod/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Walking Dead Rise of the Governor (Book #1) in Books
May 27, 2019
Characters (1 more)
Story telling
Too many author afterthoughts (1 more)
Overusage of scientific words for the brain
I love the Walking Dead. And,personally, I love any book that has a great apocalyptic world in it, and even more so if it has some pretty good characters in it, too.
Cue Brian and Philip Blake: in The Walking Dead's 'The Rise of the Governor,' we meet two brothers who barely have anything in common; Brian is a laid back, music-loving hippie, while Philip is a hard-headed, tough guy. In the story, we follow both brothers along with two of Philip's best buddies and his daughter, Penny. The focus is on the brothers almost the entire time, and quickly, the reader finds out that, surprisingly, Brian is the oldest of the pair, but yet, Philip is the one making all of the decisions. As we continue on, the dynamic between the brothers becomes clear - we start to understand that Brian has always been the cautious one of the family, while Philip quickly learned to be a fearless leader from an early age, making this odd dynamic seem right.
Most importantly, what the two have in common is their love for Penny. If you have ever watched the TV show, The Walking Dead, then you will recognize the little girl and the tragic fate that became her. But, we never knew the backstory of how Penny was turned into a zombie, which is one of the few reasons this book series was made. Penny spends much of the time as a background character, but her part plays a very important role on the development of the man we know becomes 'the Governor.' She reacts as most children would be expected to if the world were ever to suffer from a zombie apocalypse- she withdraws, barely speaking and hardly eats. When one of Philip's longtime friends gets bit by a zombie, Penny reacts with a cool casualness that seems troubling from early on. On another note, if it wasn't for her uncle, Brian, Penny would have probably died much earlier in the book, but because of his father-like protectiveness of her, she is kept alive until the end of the book. But when it does happen, I don't think I could blame Philip for keeping his daughter as a zombie-type of pet.
During the book, 'Rise of the Governor,' the group with the Blake brothers travel to Atlanta, Georgia in hopes of finding a refugee camp to hunker down at, but instead, they find that Atlanta has practically been turned over to the walkers. It's here that they fortunately meet a trio that is held up in an apartment building- this trio is the Chalmers family, which consists of David and his two grown daughters, April and Tara. The transition between the group fighting their way through the hordes in Atlanta to meeting the Chalmers family is done perfectly to the point that is it very believable that this could actually happen in real life.
One of the few problems I did have with this book were the authors' afterthoughts: too many times throughout the book, characters would suddenly show up with a new weapon or item that the authors would literally backtrack to explain how they found it, when it could have been easily shown while the character was in the area of where it was found.
Much of the story, appropriately, shows our main group of characters killing zombies with an array of weapons and such, but Kirkman - or co-writer, Bonansinga- seem to like to show off their knowledge of the brain a little too much:
"The business end of Philip's pickaxe lands squarely in the monster's head, cracking the coconutlike shell of the old man's skull, piercing the dense, fibrous membrane of the dura mater and sinking into the gelatinous parietal lobe. " The use of scientific terms just seems like an egotistical move, one that could have been avoided if they weren't used throughout the book.
In the middle of the book, there is an odd thing that happens which the reader may connect to the story or may not, when David Chalmers is meeting his end (Chalmers was suffering from advanced lung cancer before the group meets him), gives almost a prophetic speech on his death bed. We can either take this as he was speaking about who Philip was going to become or he was talking about the apocalypse as a whole, but the reader is never really told and the dying words are never discussed among any of the characters:
" 'The devil has plans for us.'... The voice that comes out of David Chalmers is low and gravelly, an engine dieseling: 'The day of reckoning is drawing near... the Deceiver walks among us.' "
Eventually, the group is forcefully thrown out of the Chalmers' apartment building due to a horrible mistake between Philip and April. To not give too much away, here is the part where Tara tells them to go away: " He whirls around and comes face-to-face with Tara Chalmers, who holds the Ruger pistol, the muzzle raised and aimed directly at Philip. "
The story continues on with the Blake brothers, Penny and Philip's friend, Nick, as they try to find shelter once again in the dead congested Atlanta. Early on, we learn that Philip has a bad temper, and as the book continues, his temper becomes more volatile and more important to the characters and the reader. Philip's personality changes are understandable in the story, but Kirkman/Bonansinga suddenly make Brian unafraid of his brother at a point where Philip's anger is almost at its worse; this isn't believable to the readers, especially because a few pages later, Brian changes back to being scared to even speak to his brother.
Overall, the story isn't about the zombies or Penny's tragic death, but rather about Brian and Philip; how the family dynamic plays out when everything is at it's worst. Also, when you read the story, there is a point where it seems that Brian is more of a father to Penny than Philip ever was, showing also the Uncle and Niece dynamics- something that will make complete sense near the end of the book. Whether you like The Walking Dead or not, the book is well done, but I believe it would only appeal to those who like survival type stories.
Cue Brian and Philip Blake: in The Walking Dead's 'The Rise of the Governor,' we meet two brothers who barely have anything in common; Brian is a laid back, music-loving hippie, while Philip is a hard-headed, tough guy. In the story, we follow both brothers along with two of Philip's best buddies and his daughter, Penny. The focus is on the brothers almost the entire time, and quickly, the reader finds out that, surprisingly, Brian is the oldest of the pair, but yet, Philip is the one making all of the decisions. As we continue on, the dynamic between the brothers becomes clear - we start to understand that Brian has always been the cautious one of the family, while Philip quickly learned to be a fearless leader from an early age, making this odd dynamic seem right.
Most importantly, what the two have in common is their love for Penny. If you have ever watched the TV show, The Walking Dead, then you will recognize the little girl and the tragic fate that became her. But, we never knew the backstory of how Penny was turned into a zombie, which is one of the few reasons this book series was made. Penny spends much of the time as a background character, but her part plays a very important role on the development of the man we know becomes 'the Governor.' She reacts as most children would be expected to if the world were ever to suffer from a zombie apocalypse- she withdraws, barely speaking and hardly eats. When one of Philip's longtime friends gets bit by a zombie, Penny reacts with a cool casualness that seems troubling from early on. On another note, if it wasn't for her uncle, Brian, Penny would have probably died much earlier in the book, but because of his father-like protectiveness of her, she is kept alive until the end of the book. But when it does happen, I don't think I could blame Philip for keeping his daughter as a zombie-type of pet.
During the book, 'Rise of the Governor,' the group with the Blake brothers travel to Atlanta, Georgia in hopes of finding a refugee camp to hunker down at, but instead, they find that Atlanta has practically been turned over to the walkers. It's here that they fortunately meet a trio that is held up in an apartment building- this trio is the Chalmers family, which consists of David and his two grown daughters, April and Tara. The transition between the group fighting their way through the hordes in Atlanta to meeting the Chalmers family is done perfectly to the point that is it very believable that this could actually happen in real life.
One of the few problems I did have with this book were the authors' afterthoughts: too many times throughout the book, characters would suddenly show up with a new weapon or item that the authors would literally backtrack to explain how they found it, when it could have been easily shown while the character was in the area of where it was found.
Much of the story, appropriately, shows our main group of characters killing zombies with an array of weapons and such, but Kirkman - or co-writer, Bonansinga- seem to like to show off their knowledge of the brain a little too much:
"The business end of Philip's pickaxe lands squarely in the monster's head, cracking the coconutlike shell of the old man's skull, piercing the dense, fibrous membrane of the dura mater and sinking into the gelatinous parietal lobe. " The use of scientific terms just seems like an egotistical move, one that could have been avoided if they weren't used throughout the book.
In the middle of the book, there is an odd thing that happens which the reader may connect to the story or may not, when David Chalmers is meeting his end (Chalmers was suffering from advanced lung cancer before the group meets him), gives almost a prophetic speech on his death bed. We can either take this as he was speaking about who Philip was going to become or he was talking about the apocalypse as a whole, but the reader is never really told and the dying words are never discussed among any of the characters:
" 'The devil has plans for us.'... The voice that comes out of David Chalmers is low and gravelly, an engine dieseling: 'The day of reckoning is drawing near... the Deceiver walks among us.' "
Eventually, the group is forcefully thrown out of the Chalmers' apartment building due to a horrible mistake between Philip and April. To not give too much away, here is the part where Tara tells them to go away: " He whirls around and comes face-to-face with Tara Chalmers, who holds the Ruger pistol, the muzzle raised and aimed directly at Philip. "
The story continues on with the Blake brothers, Penny and Philip's friend, Nick, as they try to find shelter once again in the dead congested Atlanta. Early on, we learn that Philip has a bad temper, and as the book continues, his temper becomes more volatile and more important to the characters and the reader. Philip's personality changes are understandable in the story, but Kirkman/Bonansinga suddenly make Brian unafraid of his brother at a point where Philip's anger is almost at its worse; this isn't believable to the readers, especially because a few pages later, Brian changes back to being scared to even speak to his brother.
Overall, the story isn't about the zombies or Penny's tragic death, but rather about Brian and Philip; how the family dynamic plays out when everything is at it's worst. Also, when you read the story, there is a point where it seems that Brian is more of a father to Penny than Philip ever was, showing also the Uncle and Niece dynamics- something that will make complete sense near the end of the book. Whether you like The Walking Dead or not, the book is well done, but I believe it would only appeal to those who like survival type stories.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated The Conjuring (2013) in Movies
May 13, 2019
The Conjuring Review
Contains spoilers, click to show
Originally wrote in 2013:
As an avid fan of horror I look for a few little things which if aren't apparent within the first minute decide on whether I'm going to bother with the rest of the film. Usually the company releasing the movie is a good starting point, reputable/recognised director or producer, recognisable actor/s, good production values - that sort of thing. I've seen some hum-dingers over the years - those films where Johnny Nobody has gathered several of his buddies together with a cheap camcorder or two and filmed some alleged zombie epic in the woods at the back of their school.
**The Conjuring is not one of those**
I like to think I have a strong disposition when it comes to scares - usually it takes a lot to make me squint. Examples that come to mind are 'Sinister', 'The Grudge', the end of 'The Ring' (you know, the scary dark haired girl climbing out of the TV!). The Conjuring is one of those - I watched this in the middle of the morning and found it pretty scary in places.
James Wan certainly knows how to make a movie of this type and is great at evoking atmosphere and notching up the scares as the film develops. In a nutshell, this is the alleged real life story of the Perron family who in 1971 moved into a new farmhouse. It isn't long before the usual shenanigans begin - pictures pulled off walls, doors knocking in the dead of night, the children befriending mysterious 'imaginary' kids (who we all know watching are going to show up at some point). The film sticks to the tried and tested story - gradual possession of one of the adults (Lily Taylor), gradually increasing appearances by ghostly figures, calling in the ghostbusters, gathering the proof, then the exorcism. It may be join the dots territory but it works.
Patrick Wilson shines and seems to be making his mark in films of this nature (Insidious and Insidious Chapter 2) - he portrays real life paranormal investigator Ed Warren who with his wife Lorraine (played just as well by Vera Farmiga) become immersed in the life of the Perron's making themselves targets of the supernatural force at work in the process.
The demonic spirit at work is that of a witch who was married to the guy who built the house back in the 1800's who cursed the land before committing suicide after murdering their child whilst a few days old. There is one particularly pant browning scene where the witch makes her first appearance atop a bedroom wardrobe....and I'll leave it there!
Quality. Best horror I've seen since Sinister.
As an avid fan of horror I look for a few little things which if aren't apparent within the first minute decide on whether I'm going to bother with the rest of the film. Usually the company releasing the movie is a good starting point, reputable/recognised director or producer, recognisable actor/s, good production values - that sort of thing. I've seen some hum-dingers over the years - those films where Johnny Nobody has gathered several of his buddies together with a cheap camcorder or two and filmed some alleged zombie epic in the woods at the back of their school.
**The Conjuring is not one of those**
I like to think I have a strong disposition when it comes to scares - usually it takes a lot to make me squint. Examples that come to mind are 'Sinister', 'The Grudge', the end of 'The Ring' (you know, the scary dark haired girl climbing out of the TV!). The Conjuring is one of those - I watched this in the middle of the morning and found it pretty scary in places.
James Wan certainly knows how to make a movie of this type and is great at evoking atmosphere and notching up the scares as the film develops. In a nutshell, this is the alleged real life story of the Perron family who in 1971 moved into a new farmhouse. It isn't long before the usual shenanigans begin - pictures pulled off walls, doors knocking in the dead of night, the children befriending mysterious 'imaginary' kids (who we all know watching are going to show up at some point). The film sticks to the tried and tested story - gradual possession of one of the adults (Lily Taylor), gradually increasing appearances by ghostly figures, calling in the ghostbusters, gathering the proof, then the exorcism. It may be join the dots territory but it works.
Patrick Wilson shines and seems to be making his mark in films of this nature (Insidious and Insidious Chapter 2) - he portrays real life paranormal investigator Ed Warren who with his wife Lorraine (played just as well by Vera Farmiga) become immersed in the life of the Perron's making themselves targets of the supernatural force at work in the process.
The demonic spirit at work is that of a witch who was married to the guy who built the house back in the 1800's who cursed the land before committing suicide after murdering their child whilst a few days old. There is one particularly pant browning scene where the witch makes her first appearance atop a bedroom wardrobe....and I'll leave it there!
Quality. Best horror I've seen since Sinister.
Duchess of Malfi, the White Devil, the Broken Heart and 'Tis Pity She's a Whore
John Ford, John Webster and Jane Kingsley-Smith
6.5
Rate It
Book
These four plays, written during the reigns of James I and Charles I, took revenge tragedy in dark...
Gordon Gano recommended track Dulcinea by Various Artists in Man of La Mancha by Various Artists in Music (curated)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The BFG (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Spielberg, where are you?
Roald Dahl’s inspiring novels have had a chequered history when it comes to turning them into films. Danny DeVito’s Matilda is widely regarded as one of the best adaptations, with Tim Burton’s Charlie & the Chocolate Factory rendered a monstrosity by fans of the author and movie critics alike.
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/