Search
Search results
Mike Carlson (115 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man: Died In Your Arms Tonight in Books
Mar 18, 2018
Issue 600, plus
This 4-issue collection circles ASM #600 and Aunt May's wedding to J. Jonah Jameson Sr. While there is a lot of creative talent here, many of the stories involve peripheral stuff. Half of the book focuses on Uncle Ben's method of raising Peter, how Ben and May met, the Spider-Mobile, playground kids verbalizing what it would be like to be Spider-Man, Jessica Jones' inspiration, and a tongue-in-cheek couch session for Spidey's changes over the years. All of it is well- handled...just not my first choice for superhero reading.
The book really shines in two stories in particular. The first, "Peter Parker Must Die" has Peter dealing with a Ben Reilly repercussion called Raptor. The second,"Last Legs", contains the return of a physically inferior Doc Ock that wants the leave a lasting legacy. This issue was really good, and even the follow-up, which was a wedding aftermath issue due to a surprise wedding guest, was pretty entertaining.
The book really shines in two stories in particular. The first, "Peter Parker Must Die" has Peter dealing with a Ben Reilly repercussion called Raptor. The second,"Last Legs", contains the return of a physically inferior Doc Ock that wants the leave a lasting legacy. This issue was really good, and even the follow-up, which was a wedding aftermath issue due to a surprise wedding guest, was pretty entertaining.
Andy K (10821 KP) created a poll about in Movies are the shiz!
Jul 11, 2018
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) in Movies
Jun 6, 2021
Three Billboards is a fricking masterpiece, and another home run from Martin McDonagh.
The cast is stacked to say the least. Frances McDormand and Sam Rockwell both give a career best performance. The supporting cast is made up of the likes of Woody Harrelson, Caleb Landry Jones, Abbie Cornish, Lucas Hedges, John Hawkes, Clarke Peters, Samara Weaving, and Peter Dinklage - all who are just great. McDonagh's screenplay is fantastic as per usual, and the runtime is filled with his token dark humour, as well as plenty of emotionally charged events. The narrative is sort of all over the place, with several plot strands all running alongside and throughout eachother, but it's messiness adds to the whole experience, almost like a sort of controlled chaos. All of this is backed by a truly wonderful music score by Carter Burwell.
Three Billboards is just one of those movies that springs off the screen and sticks in your head for all the right reasons.
The cast is stacked to say the least. Frances McDormand and Sam Rockwell both give a career best performance. The supporting cast is made up of the likes of Woody Harrelson, Caleb Landry Jones, Abbie Cornish, Lucas Hedges, John Hawkes, Clarke Peters, Samara Weaving, and Peter Dinklage - all who are just great. McDonagh's screenplay is fantastic as per usual, and the runtime is filled with his token dark humour, as well as plenty of emotionally charged events. The narrative is sort of all over the place, with several plot strands all running alongside and throughout eachother, but it's messiness adds to the whole experience, almost like a sort of controlled chaos. All of this is backed by a truly wonderful music score by Carter Burwell.
Three Billboards is just one of those movies that springs off the screen and sticks in your head for all the right reasons.
Erika (17788 KP) rated Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway (2021) in Movies
Jun 15, 2021
Full disclosure, I absolutely loved the first Peter Rabbit film. I found it completely hilarious and cackled numerous times. The sequel did not make me laugh.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
Harrison Boyer (6 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) in Movies
May 17, 2019
A Film to Define a Generation
Contains spoilers, click to show
Back in 1977, a little movie came out. One that would define a generation and change the industry forever. That movie is Star Wars. Growing up in the 90s and 2000s, I had the Star Wars exposure to watch when I pleased. I've seen this movie countless times. Everytime I watch it, I get really happy. I feel like a kid again. This movie has grabbed the attentions of millions and has touched many. From its opening crawl and opening shot. To the cantinas scene that puts you in unfamiliar waters. To a beautiful score by John Williams. Special effects that hold well today. And a group of freedom fighters that many identify with. It's no surprise this movie is nothing short of great. The only complaint that really comes to mind without taking alterations into account, is the acting at times, especially from the newcomers can be a little bad in comparison to greats like James Earl Jones, Peter Cushing and of course, Sir Alec Guinness. If you haven't checked out this film, it's one that is highly recommended for anyone wishing to study film.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Wendy (Tales of The Wendy #1) in Books
Dec 29, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
If I am being completely honest, Peter Pan has never been my favourite Disney film. Oh sure the lost boys and Michael were cute; Tink was sassy and Hook was a good villain but why did everyone moon over Peter so much? And Wendy was always a bit, well a bit wet!
Enter Erin Michelle Sky and Steven Brown with their Tales of Wendy series to prove me wrong! The Wendy is the first in this series but I am already desperate to finish the second book, The Navigator before their third is released at the end of this year.
The Wendy, as you may expect, centres around Wendy Darling. However, this is not the prissy, mother-idolising figure I love to roll my eyes at: oh no, this Wendy Darling is growing up in the late 1700s in a London orphanage. In a world where her sole career option seems to be to become a mother, this feisty ten-year-old would prefer to “marry Davy Jones than grow up and look after babies”. This Wendy Darling is the one I have been waiting for.
Wendy’s dream is to join the Navy and sail the world. Unlike the rest of 18th Century Britain, she doesn’t see why being a girl should prevent this.
Therefore, over the years she becomes adapt at mathematics, science, navigation, marksmanship and swordsmanship. Nevertheless, despite being just as good, if not better than her childhood friend Charlie, he earns the rank of Officer in the British Navy whilst Wendy is assigned to the Home Office as a Diviner, one who can detect the presence of magic: a post to be filled only by women and dogs.
It is here that the reader meets John and Michael: Wendy’s “brothers-in-arms but in no way related, despite what you may have heard”. They are all stationed in Dover Castle, along with the Brigade’s dog Nana (who else?!). Their mission: to protect Britain from a magical threat, the innisfay or “everlost”, whom are known to kidnap orphans. Sound familiar?
The Wendy is definitely the best retelling of Peter Pan I have read so far. Despite the presence of all our favourite names, the characters are a far cry from their animated counterparts. Michael and John are wonderfully dry and sarcastic; Hook is powerful and attractive; Tink is a shape shifter; Peter, despite possessing a pair of wings and armour, is essentially the same and Wendy is an ambitious, feisty, yet beautifully flawed protagonist.
There are many little nods to the film which are greatly appreciated. Wendy “moving out of the nursery” means leaving the orphanage and gaining an apprenticeship and “thinking happy thoughts” as a means of flight is a practical joke by Peter to make Wendy smile.
Sky and Brown’s conversationalist style of writing makes this a very easy read, despite Wendy galloping all over the South of England with a variety of characters. It also allows the reader to really bond with Wendy and empathise with her and her struggles to achieve the employment she has longed so for since childhood.
As you may have gathered, sexism plays a large part in Wendy’s uphill struggle: as the only main female character she is constantly undermined in her ambition to become a sailor. Even when she proves to be useful in her post within the Home Office she is removed to the country “for her own safety”. Those men whom do not undermine her moon after her romantically: it truly is infuriating.
In some situations, this ingrained attitude was slightly heart-breaking but equally a sign of the times in which this novel was set: Wendy’s thoughts often returned to the propriety of her actions and the danger she experiences just through wearing “men’s clothes” is powerful moment. However, Wendy never lets these attitudes halt her ambition, ending her first novel as a true inspiration to girls following in her footsteps: Navigator Darling.
I can’t wait to discover the next step in her journey which, conveniently, lays past the second star to the right and straight on till morning!
Enter Erin Michelle Sky and Steven Brown with their Tales of Wendy series to prove me wrong! The Wendy is the first in this series but I am already desperate to finish the second book, The Navigator before their third is released at the end of this year.
The Wendy, as you may expect, centres around Wendy Darling. However, this is not the prissy, mother-idolising figure I love to roll my eyes at: oh no, this Wendy Darling is growing up in the late 1700s in a London orphanage. In a world where her sole career option seems to be to become a mother, this feisty ten-year-old would prefer to “marry Davy Jones than grow up and look after babies”. This Wendy Darling is the one I have been waiting for.
Wendy’s dream is to join the Navy and sail the world. Unlike the rest of 18th Century Britain, she doesn’t see why being a girl should prevent this.
Therefore, over the years she becomes adapt at mathematics, science, navigation, marksmanship and swordsmanship. Nevertheless, despite being just as good, if not better than her childhood friend Charlie, he earns the rank of Officer in the British Navy whilst Wendy is assigned to the Home Office as a Diviner, one who can detect the presence of magic: a post to be filled only by women and dogs.
It is here that the reader meets John and Michael: Wendy’s “brothers-in-arms but in no way related, despite what you may have heard”. They are all stationed in Dover Castle, along with the Brigade’s dog Nana (who else?!). Their mission: to protect Britain from a magical threat, the innisfay or “everlost”, whom are known to kidnap orphans. Sound familiar?
The Wendy is definitely the best retelling of Peter Pan I have read so far. Despite the presence of all our favourite names, the characters are a far cry from their animated counterparts. Michael and John are wonderfully dry and sarcastic; Hook is powerful and attractive; Tink is a shape shifter; Peter, despite possessing a pair of wings and armour, is essentially the same and Wendy is an ambitious, feisty, yet beautifully flawed protagonist.
There are many little nods to the film which are greatly appreciated. Wendy “moving out of the nursery” means leaving the orphanage and gaining an apprenticeship and “thinking happy thoughts” as a means of flight is a practical joke by Peter to make Wendy smile.
Sky and Brown’s conversationalist style of writing makes this a very easy read, despite Wendy galloping all over the South of England with a variety of characters. It also allows the reader to really bond with Wendy and empathise with her and her struggles to achieve the employment she has longed so for since childhood.
As you may have gathered, sexism plays a large part in Wendy’s uphill struggle: as the only main female character she is constantly undermined in her ambition to become a sailor. Even when she proves to be useful in her post within the Home Office she is removed to the country “for her own safety”. Those men whom do not undermine her moon after her romantically: it truly is infuriating.
In some situations, this ingrained attitude was slightly heart-breaking but equally a sign of the times in which this novel was set: Wendy’s thoughts often returned to the propriety of her actions and the danger she experiences just through wearing “men’s clothes” is powerful moment. However, Wendy never lets these attitudes halt her ambition, ending her first novel as a true inspiration to girls following in her footsteps: Navigator Darling.
I can’t wait to discover the next step in her journey which, conveniently, lays past the second star to the right and straight on till morning!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the magic? Where's the sparkle?
The mesmerising story of Peter Pan has been told by numerous directors, playwrights and novelists over the years with Disney’s brilliant animation being one of the highlights in a series of standout moments.
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Infernal
Dan Brown has had a bad rap over the years from snobbish reviewers who dismiss his work as “trash”. I’m sure to a large degree the multi-millionaire Dan Brown couldn’t give a toss! I personally enjoyed both the books and Ron Howard’s films of “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels and Demons” as glossy escapism. Occasionally though books will generate a “WHHAAAT??” moment and Brown’s 2013 novel “Inferno” generated just such a response in its dramatic conclusion… and (for me at least) not in a good way. As someone always looking at script potential in books, the words “unfilmable” came to mind. So veteran screenwriter David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”, “Mission Impossible”, “Spiderman”) is to be congratulated in ‘adapting’ the story to provide a coherent screenplay.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
Ross (3282 KP) rated Christopher Robin (2018) in Movies
Aug 27, 2018
Great coming-of-age story of leaving behind childish things (a la Toy Story 3), weighed up with the perils of growing up (responsibilities and prioritising work over family). Christopher Robin leaves the Hundred Acre Wood to grow up and somehow loses his way as the stresses of adult life take hold.
I really hated the trailer for this film, thinking it looked like they'd taken the plot of The Smurfs or Paddington and just swapped in the different characters. It really didn't do it justice as this is not your average CGI creatures madcap adventures in the real world film. There are real poignant moments in the Hundred Acre Wood before any of the toys have really made it to the real world. Also I did not like the look of Pooh, he seemed just wrong on so many levels. But as with any 2D character, nothing 3D will quite look right and you soon become to like him and appreciate his facial expressions.
Ewan McGregor is OK as Christopher Robin (though interesting that he somehow lost his North English accent as he grew up), though is somehow neither truly believable as the curmudgeon nor as the eventual (spoiler alert) happy, funloving Dad.
The cast of the Hundred Acre wood seem quite familiar to me, as Jim Cummings continues his reign as Pooh and Tigger, but we (briefly) have Peter Capaldi (doing an impression of Gary Oldman) as Rabbit and Toby Jones as Owl.
Enjoyable cameo appearances from Mackenzie Crook and Matt Berry in one scene.
Some real poignant moments at the start of the film, but this wasn't reflected in the finale as that was not as emotive as it could have been.
Not really a film for under-10s, more for the older children, who ironically may think it is more babyish than it really is (my eldest is 10 and was refusing to go and see it but I think she enjoyed it more than her younger siblings).
I really hated the trailer for this film, thinking it looked like they'd taken the plot of The Smurfs or Paddington and just swapped in the different characters. It really didn't do it justice as this is not your average CGI creatures madcap adventures in the real world film. There are real poignant moments in the Hundred Acre Wood before any of the toys have really made it to the real world. Also I did not like the look of Pooh, he seemed just wrong on so many levels. But as with any 2D character, nothing 3D will quite look right and you soon become to like him and appreciate his facial expressions.
Ewan McGregor is OK as Christopher Robin (though interesting that he somehow lost his North English accent as he grew up), though is somehow neither truly believable as the curmudgeon nor as the eventual (spoiler alert) happy, funloving Dad.
The cast of the Hundred Acre wood seem quite familiar to me, as Jim Cummings continues his reign as Pooh and Tigger, but we (briefly) have Peter Capaldi (doing an impression of Gary Oldman) as Rabbit and Toby Jones as Owl.
Enjoyable cameo appearances from Mackenzie Crook and Matt Berry in one scene.
Some real poignant moments at the start of the film, but this wasn't reflected in the finale as that was not as emotive as it could have been.
Not really a film for under-10s, more for the older children, who ironically may think it is more babyish than it really is (my eldest is 10 and was refusing to go and see it but I think she enjoyed it more than her younger siblings).
Sarah (7798 KP) rated American Gods - Season 1 in TV
Jan 27, 2019
An intriguing & decent adaptation
I really enjoyed the book and had heard good things about the show, and I’m please to say that for the most part this is a very good adaptation.
I completely agree with everyone else that has compared this to Hannibal. From the effective visual imagery and the dream sequences, to the impressive amount of blood and gore, it’s difficult not to recognise parts of Hannibal in this. Unsurprising though considering they’re both made by Bryan Fuller. Ian McShane is truly fantastic as Mr Wednesday, they couldn’t have picked anyone better and even Ricky Whittle is brilliant as Shadow. He really has come a long way from his Hollyoaks days! There are also some great cameo/supporting performances from Gillian Anderson, Crispin Glover, Peter Stormare and Orlando Jones.
The story does at least start off following the book but does veer off slightly as the episodes move on. In some cases, this isn’t a bad thing. I like what they’ve done with Shadow’s character, making him more outgoing and vocal than his too quiet persona in the books. This works. What doesn’t work is what they’ve done with Laura. I can see why they’ve wanted to make her a more central character, but for me this just doesn’t work. She’s so annoying and brash and the episodes that concentrate mostly around her were the dullest of the entire series. I just hate her whole angry persona and if it wasn’t for the fact that she’s usually on screen alongside Mad Sweeney (who’s a great character), I’m not sure I could tolerate her. The show also puts you in the same position as Shadow, completely confused about what’s going on. It’s not too bad when you’ve read the book, but I can imagine it being a little too much if you haven’t.
In all a visually stunning show with a few flaws, but still some great potential.
I completely agree with everyone else that has compared this to Hannibal. From the effective visual imagery and the dream sequences, to the impressive amount of blood and gore, it’s difficult not to recognise parts of Hannibal in this. Unsurprising though considering they’re both made by Bryan Fuller. Ian McShane is truly fantastic as Mr Wednesday, they couldn’t have picked anyone better and even Ricky Whittle is brilliant as Shadow. He really has come a long way from his Hollyoaks days! There are also some great cameo/supporting performances from Gillian Anderson, Crispin Glover, Peter Stormare and Orlando Jones.
The story does at least start off following the book but does veer off slightly as the episodes move on. In some cases, this isn’t a bad thing. I like what they’ve done with Shadow’s character, making him more outgoing and vocal than his too quiet persona in the books. This works. What doesn’t work is what they’ve done with Laura. I can see why they’ve wanted to make her a more central character, but for me this just doesn’t work. She’s so annoying and brash and the episodes that concentrate mostly around her were the dullest of the entire series. I just hate her whole angry persona and if it wasn’t for the fact that she’s usually on screen alongside Mad Sweeney (who’s a great character), I’m not sure I could tolerate her. The show also puts you in the same position as Shadow, completely confused about what’s going on. It’s not too bad when you’ve read the book, but I can imagine it being a little too much if you haven’t.
In all a visually stunning show with a few flaws, but still some great potential.