Search
Search results
The Canterville Ghost (Oscar Wilde) Immersive Book
Book, Education and Stickers
App
Reader, in your eager and clasping hands, you hold one of Oscar Wilde's most cherished works: The...
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
I wanted to like it.
Ignoring every entry other than Carpenter's original, 2018's Halloween attempts to reboot the Franchise in anew direction.
Oddly enough, comedian Danny McBride was a writer, while director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express) directed.
I blame much of my distaste on their overhyping it. They said this would be a slower movie focused on creating suspense ala the original.
In reality, this more than tripled the body count, even surpassing Rob Zombie's remake which was 10 minutes longer.
From the get-go, Michael just wanders about killing people, at one point we just follow him walking down a street randomly killing people. This has more senseless violence then Zombie's outings.
Another thing I didn't like was that, with this only following the original in which after escaping, he killed 4 people. It doesn't make sense that he would be this popular legend still talked about 40 years later.
Also, victims are idiots, it's no shock who gets killed. Honestly, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) was the only likable character, and even she pushed it a bit.
For positives, Carpenter's score was great, I liked some of the camera work. Intro credits were cool, throwing back to the original. And Curtis was good returning as Laurie Strode.
I really wanted to like 2018's Halloween, but it lacked suspense, characters were dumb, it felt more like a senseless action/comedy than horror. This would've fit the Friday the 13th franchise better. I really hope that the sequels are better.
Oddly enough, comedian Danny McBride was a writer, while director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express) directed.
I blame much of my distaste on their overhyping it. They said this would be a slower movie focused on creating suspense ala the original.
In reality, this more than tripled the body count, even surpassing Rob Zombie's remake which was 10 minutes longer.
From the get-go, Michael just wanders about killing people, at one point we just follow him walking down a street randomly killing people. This has more senseless violence then Zombie's outings.
Another thing I didn't like was that, with this only following the original in which after escaping, he killed 4 people. It doesn't make sense that he would be this popular legend still talked about 40 years later.
Also, victims are idiots, it's no shock who gets killed. Honestly, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) was the only likable character, and even she pushed it a bit.
For positives, Carpenter's score was great, I liked some of the camera work. Intro credits were cool, throwing back to the original. And Curtis was good returning as Laurie Strode.
I really wanted to like 2018's Halloween, but it lacked suspense, characters were dumb, it felt more like a senseless action/comedy than horror. This would've fit the Friday the 13th franchise better. I really hope that the sequels are better.
I'm a massive fan of the (widely slated) original TV mini-series and can't see past Tim Curry as Pennywise. However I found this to be a good alternative version. I would say it is more of a horror movie than the original version, and probably closer to the book (though it has been some time since I read that) and there is a lot less of a Stand By Me feel about it. All the child actors are excellent in this, especially Stranger Things' superbly named Finn Wolfhand as (Beep beep) Ritchie who here gets to have a lot more fun than he seems to on Stranger Things.
Bill skarsgard plays Pennywise well, at times appearing childish and just wanting to be friends, and then quickly switches to a blank mental stare.
The decision to make this two films was a brave one, though the story does lend itself well to doing so. I much preferred the 80s setting for the film with the kids being the victims and am not exactly awaiting the adult follow up with anticipation.
Bill skarsgard plays Pennywise well, at times appearing childish and just wanting to be friends, and then quickly switches to a blank mental stare.
The decision to make this two films was a brave one, though the story does lend itself well to doing so. I much preferred the 80s setting for the film with the kids being the victims and am not exactly awaiting the adult follow up with anticipation.
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Jan 31, 2018
A worthy follow-up to the original Paddington movie
The original Paddington movie rather unexpectedly charms the pants off of our whole family. So, we were more willing than usual to take our daughter to see the sequel when it hit theatres. We found it to be a lovely experience that - while not quite as good as the original movie - was still rather charming.
You don't necessarily need to see the first movie to enjoy Paddington 2, but I think you'll enjoy it so much more if you do. The relationships between the family and Paddington are one of the reasons you come to like the movies so much.
And, I have to say, Hugh Grant actually cracked me up in this movie. I kind of rolled my eyes at him at first, but by the end of the movie I was definitely snickering.
The CGI is good. The acting is perfect for a kid's movie. The plot and pacing are well done as well. I wouldn't say go watch it even if you don't have kids, but if you have kids, it's one you won't regret going to theatres to see with your little ankle-biters.
You don't necessarily need to see the first movie to enjoy Paddington 2, but I think you'll enjoy it so much more if you do. The relationships between the family and Paddington are one of the reasons you come to like the movies so much.
And, I have to say, Hugh Grant actually cracked me up in this movie. I kind of rolled my eyes at him at first, but by the end of the movie I was definitely snickering.
The CGI is good. The acting is perfect for a kid's movie. The plot and pacing are well done as well. I wouldn't say go watch it even if you don't have kids, but if you have kids, it's one you won't regret going to theatres to see with your little ankle-biters.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Grey: Fifty Shades of Grey as Told by Christian in Books
Jan 17, 2018 (Updated Jan 17, 2018)
As bad as the original trilogy
I actually feel embarrassed that I’ve read this book. I read the original trilogy (skim reading by the time I got to the third one) and was vaguely interested in seeing if it being told from Christian’s perspective made for a better read. Short answer is no.
This has obviously been written for the money and I don’t doubt that it’s done very well. However Christian’s perspective is not a good one. In the original books he’s very aloof, cold and confident but in this he just comes across as a petulant clingy teenager. I’m sure it was intended to show his softer side, but it’s just made him out as weak and ridiculously irritating. His internal monologue too is atrocious, his constant use of “baby” made me want to cringe and it makes him sound so childish.
And the “erotic” parts.... they’re just repetitive, laughable and about as erotic as dirty dish water. This book (and the rest of the trilogy) are just a nonsense fairytale for people who don’t know any better. Avoid at all costs!
This has obviously been written for the money and I don’t doubt that it’s done very well. However Christian’s perspective is not a good one. In the original books he’s very aloof, cold and confident but in this he just comes across as a petulant clingy teenager. I’m sure it was intended to show his softer side, but it’s just made him out as weak and ridiculously irritating. His internal monologue too is atrocious, his constant use of “baby” made me want to cringe and it makes him sound so childish.
And the “erotic” parts.... they’re just repetitive, laughable and about as erotic as dirty dish water. This book (and the rest of the trilogy) are just a nonsense fairytale for people who don’t know any better. Avoid at all costs!
Little Britain: The Complete Radio: Series 1
6.0
Rate It
Book
The Little Britain radio series won a Sony Award when it first appeared on radio, and has since gone...
The 4.50 from Paddington
Book
A facsimile first edition hardback of the Miss Marple books, published to mark the 75th anniversary...
SpongeBob Bikini Bottom Sports
Games and Entertainment
App
Bikini Bottom Sports – SpongeBob App for iPhone and iPod Touch! Olympic fever has hit...
Sara Cox (1845 KP) rated The Surface Breaks in Books
May 22, 2020
Anyone that knows me, knows that I love a good retelling. And this is definitely a good retelling. The story is not dissimilar to the original; and I'm talking original Hans Christian Andersen, not Disney. Where this was happening in time was not clear but I read it as quite modern, rather than the age of horse and carriage. I really liked the back story of the little mermaid's mother and the intertwining back story of the "Prince's" father. I say "Prince" but in reality he is a rich young man due to a boating company. Like many retellings of The Little Mermaid the sea witch has a back story which takes away the perception of malice, but of a merperson wrongly outcasted and trying to help while keeping within the rules and bounds of magic. I found the different groups of merpeople really interesting, especially the creatures that now spend their days punishing men due to how they have been treated by men in their former life - a kind of revenge.
For people who like the original story and would like a slightly updated version, this is definitely the read for you!
For people who like the original story and would like a slightly updated version, this is definitely the read for you!
A History of Ancient Greek Literature
Book
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge...