Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated 300: Rise of an Empire (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 300: Rise of an Empire starts by right where the previous one finished with Xerxes (Santoro) taking the head of Leonidas. Queen Gorgo (Headey) is leading the next onslaught on the Persians.
I think we go prequel with Themistokles (Stapleton) leading the Greek army back against the Persians before they can take any of the Greek cities. The battle leads to the death of King Darius (Naor) leads to Artemisia (Green) and Xerxes son of Darius go on the revenge mission with Xerxes entering into the world of the Gods becoming a God King.
Themistokles goes to Sparta to build a united Greece while Xerxes is waiting for word from the messenger sent. We learn of Artemisia is Greek by descent and is out for revenge on any Greek person she finds after they raped and murdered her whole family. Themistokles builds his navy army for a battle on the sea against the Persian fleet leading to epic battles on the ocean. What follows is a string of battles each one with the other trying to get the upper hand.
Suffering a defeat Themistokles uses his defeat and the Spartans defeat as fuel to unite Greece once and for all as they take the battle to a conclusion once and for all.
300: Rise of an Empire does play the idea of following another side of the battle really well, mixing between the prequel elements and sequel elements. The main problem is that the scenes of the battles come off very confusing which is the main reason for the story. It does show the new historical legends even though they are lesser known names. It really ends up feeling like a forced sequel that has come too late after the first one. I feel this focuses too much on its action sequences and the story falls into the background after a while. (5/10)
Actor Review
Sullivan Stapleton: Themistokles Greek warrior who leads the navy fleet into battles on the sea against the Persians after he kills their King Darrius. Sullivan does give a good performance and looks the part. (7/10)
themstokles
Eva Green: Artemisia leader of the Persian naval unit who also plays Xerxes to go into combat the way she wants to win the war. Eva gives a good performance and makes for a great villainous role. (7/10)
green
Rodrigo Santoro: Xerxes God King of Persia who is at battle with the Spartans and the Greeks. Rodrigo gives a solid performance and has to get praised for the look he ends up having after the makeup. (7/10)
erxes
Support Cast: 300: Rise of an Empire has a huge support cast that are all warriors in either side of the battle.
Director Review: Noam Murro – Noam does a solid job directing making the action look very good but doesn’t pull the story through as much as he should be. (6/10)
Action: 300: Rise of an Empire can’t be denied about how good the action is even if the naval moments come off confusing at times. (8/10)
War: 300: Rise of an Empire really is one of the war films that really do end up putting the fantasy into legend. (7/10)
Settings: 300: Rise of an Empire creates settings that look the part for the time of the battles. (7/10)
Special Effects: 300: Rise of an Empire has great effects at time but slowly start to feel over used. (7/10)
Suggestion: 300: Rise of an Empire is one to be watched if you enjoyed the first one but not the most interesting for the first time viewer. (Fans Watch)
Best Part: Final battle looks good.
Worst Part: A Horse on a boat, really?
Action Scene Of The Film: Final Battle.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for another sequel.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $337 Million
Budget: $110 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Tagline: Seize your glory
Trivia: The original script featured King Leonidas from 300 (2006), but he was ultimately cut out. This was due to Gerard Butler, who turned down to reprise his role as Leonidas, since it “wasn’t really [his] thing”.
Overall: Sequel we didn’t really need
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/17/300-rise-of-an-empire-2014/
I think we go prequel with Themistokles (Stapleton) leading the Greek army back against the Persians before they can take any of the Greek cities. The battle leads to the death of King Darius (Naor) leads to Artemisia (Green) and Xerxes son of Darius go on the revenge mission with Xerxes entering into the world of the Gods becoming a God King.
Themistokles goes to Sparta to build a united Greece while Xerxes is waiting for word from the messenger sent. We learn of Artemisia is Greek by descent and is out for revenge on any Greek person she finds after they raped and murdered her whole family. Themistokles builds his navy army for a battle on the sea against the Persian fleet leading to epic battles on the ocean. What follows is a string of battles each one with the other trying to get the upper hand.
Suffering a defeat Themistokles uses his defeat and the Spartans defeat as fuel to unite Greece once and for all as they take the battle to a conclusion once and for all.
300: Rise of an Empire does play the idea of following another side of the battle really well, mixing between the prequel elements and sequel elements. The main problem is that the scenes of the battles come off very confusing which is the main reason for the story. It does show the new historical legends even though they are lesser known names. It really ends up feeling like a forced sequel that has come too late after the first one. I feel this focuses too much on its action sequences and the story falls into the background after a while. (5/10)
Actor Review
Sullivan Stapleton: Themistokles Greek warrior who leads the navy fleet into battles on the sea against the Persians after he kills their King Darrius. Sullivan does give a good performance and looks the part. (7/10)
themstokles
Eva Green: Artemisia leader of the Persian naval unit who also plays Xerxes to go into combat the way she wants to win the war. Eva gives a good performance and makes for a great villainous role. (7/10)
green
Rodrigo Santoro: Xerxes God King of Persia who is at battle with the Spartans and the Greeks. Rodrigo gives a solid performance and has to get praised for the look he ends up having after the makeup. (7/10)
erxes
Support Cast: 300: Rise of an Empire has a huge support cast that are all warriors in either side of the battle.
Director Review: Noam Murro – Noam does a solid job directing making the action look very good but doesn’t pull the story through as much as he should be. (6/10)
Action: 300: Rise of an Empire can’t be denied about how good the action is even if the naval moments come off confusing at times. (8/10)
War: 300: Rise of an Empire really is one of the war films that really do end up putting the fantasy into legend. (7/10)
Settings: 300: Rise of an Empire creates settings that look the part for the time of the battles. (7/10)
Special Effects: 300: Rise of an Empire has great effects at time but slowly start to feel over used. (7/10)
Suggestion: 300: Rise of an Empire is one to be watched if you enjoyed the first one but not the most interesting for the first time viewer. (Fans Watch)
Best Part: Final battle looks good.
Worst Part: A Horse on a boat, really?
Action Scene Of The Film: Final Battle.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Left open for another sequel.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $337 Million
Budget: $110 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Tagline: Seize your glory
Trivia: The original script featured King Leonidas from 300 (2006), but he was ultimately cut out. This was due to Gerard Butler, who turned down to reprise his role as Leonidas, since it “wasn’t really [his] thing”.
Overall: Sequel we didn’t really need
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/05/17/300-rise-of-an-empire-2014/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Stephen King's A Good Marriage (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Good Marriage starts with the anniversary party of Darcy (Allen) and Bob Anderson (LaPaglia) with their grown up children Petra (Connolly) and Donnie (Stockman). Everything on the outside looks like it is going great for the couple and what could possibly be shocking about them? The couple seem to have a follower in Holt Ramsey (Lang) but why?
Darcy’s life takes a sudden change when searching for batteries she finds a hidden box with the drivers licences of woman who are found dead. As Darcy struggles to deal with the realisation that she is married to a serial killer we watch how Bob is tracking down him latest victim while away on business. We have to watch how Bob and Darcy try to work through the problems because spilling the secret could ruin the family.
A Good Marriage really does end up coming off very dull, the concept sounds very interesting. I feel this story should have been a hell of a lot tenser because of the action of the husband especially with the idea that the wife doesn’t want to destroy her children’s lives with the secret. I can honestly say I was expecting a look into the husband’s killing and an actual confrontation rather than just a calm talking about his actions. Overall the story doesn’t come off very well at all and I can honestly say this will disappoint any and all the Stephen King Fans out there. (2/10)
Actor Review
Joan Allen: Darcy Anderson is the loving mother and wife who discovers her husband’s secret. Darcy has to try and figure out what to do because talking will destroy the family but she also knows the next victim will now be here fault. Joan does a solid job but doesn’t reach the levels you would expect to make you feel like her character is scared or keeping a brave face. (5/10)
Anthony LaPaglia: Bob Anderson is the account husband of Darcy who has been living a different life behind his family’s back as a serial killer. When his wife discovers his secret he has to convince her not to go to the cops and ruin the life the children think they have had. Anthony is an actor I would expect to be able to play this role really well but he doesn’t seem to get into the role enough to make us believe he is a killer. (3/10)
Support Cast: A Good Marriage has a supporting cast that are mostly people Darcy is trying to protect from the truth, but it also has a man trying to find out the truth about the killer.
Director Review: Peter Askin – Peter doesn’t give us enough tension in a film that should be filled to the rim with tension because of the subject matter. (3/10)
Thriller: A Good Marriage is a film that should be filled with tension but this manages to let it all go without capitalising on the idea. (2/10)
Settings: A Good Marriage keeps the settings great because the idea would be that the killer is in plain sight living a normal life. (9/10)
Suggestion: A Good Marriage has to go down as one to avoid because it really does disappoint trying to tell an easy story. (Avoid)
Best Part: Hard to find anything.
Worst Part: No Tension.
Improve Ideas: High tension level.
Believability: The idea does come from a real serial killer but the outcome on film doesn’t really work. (3/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Trivia: This is Stephen King’s first self-adapted screenplay since “Pet Sematary,” which was released 25 years earlier. The last feature film script he wrote was “Sleepwalkers,” released in 1992. Since then he has written TV movies, mini-series and shows, such as “The Stand,” “The Shining” and “Kingdom Hospital.”
Overall: Very disappointing thriller with no actual tension.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/04/a-good-marriage-2014/
Darcy’s life takes a sudden change when searching for batteries she finds a hidden box with the drivers licences of woman who are found dead. As Darcy struggles to deal with the realisation that she is married to a serial killer we watch how Bob is tracking down him latest victim while away on business. We have to watch how Bob and Darcy try to work through the problems because spilling the secret could ruin the family.
A Good Marriage really does end up coming off very dull, the concept sounds very interesting. I feel this story should have been a hell of a lot tenser because of the action of the husband especially with the idea that the wife doesn’t want to destroy her children’s lives with the secret. I can honestly say I was expecting a look into the husband’s killing and an actual confrontation rather than just a calm talking about his actions. Overall the story doesn’t come off very well at all and I can honestly say this will disappoint any and all the Stephen King Fans out there. (2/10)
Actor Review
Joan Allen: Darcy Anderson is the loving mother and wife who discovers her husband’s secret. Darcy has to try and figure out what to do because talking will destroy the family but she also knows the next victim will now be here fault. Joan does a solid job but doesn’t reach the levels you would expect to make you feel like her character is scared or keeping a brave face. (5/10)
Anthony LaPaglia: Bob Anderson is the account husband of Darcy who has been living a different life behind his family’s back as a serial killer. When his wife discovers his secret he has to convince her not to go to the cops and ruin the life the children think they have had. Anthony is an actor I would expect to be able to play this role really well but he doesn’t seem to get into the role enough to make us believe he is a killer. (3/10)
Support Cast: A Good Marriage has a supporting cast that are mostly people Darcy is trying to protect from the truth, but it also has a man trying to find out the truth about the killer.
Director Review: Peter Askin – Peter doesn’t give us enough tension in a film that should be filled to the rim with tension because of the subject matter. (3/10)
Thriller: A Good Marriage is a film that should be filled with tension but this manages to let it all go without capitalising on the idea. (2/10)
Settings: A Good Marriage keeps the settings great because the idea would be that the killer is in plain sight living a normal life. (9/10)
Suggestion: A Good Marriage has to go down as one to avoid because it really does disappoint trying to tell an easy story. (Avoid)
Best Part: Hard to find anything.
Worst Part: No Tension.
Improve Ideas: High tension level.
Believability: The idea does come from a real serial killer but the outcome on film doesn’t really work. (3/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Trivia: This is Stephen King’s first self-adapted screenplay since “Pet Sematary,” which was released 25 years earlier. The last feature film script he wrote was “Sleepwalkers,” released in 1992. Since then he has written TV movies, mini-series and shows, such as “The Stand,” “The Shining” and “Kingdom Hospital.”
Overall: Very disappointing thriller with no actual tension.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/04/a-good-marriage-2014/
Darren (1599 KP) rated All Cheerleaders Die (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: All Cheerleaders Die starts with a look at head cheerleader Alexis (Cooper) who literally thinks she has the whole school under her finger but while performing she dies. The girls hold auditions for new role in the squad which Alexis old friend Maddy takes a chance with a deeper quest to get her own revenge on Terry.
Once a member of the cheer-leading team we see how she starts pushing them away from the football stars including the captain Terry (Williamson) who ends up causing the deaths of members of the team, but when Leena (Smit-McPhee) a witch brings them back to life, but now they have a craving for human flesh and target Terry for the ultimate revenge.cheerleader
All Cheerleaders Die starts off very slowly for my liking trying to introduce the characters and tease at a massive revenge angle before anything happens. Once the cheerleaders get killed the film steps up and unloads all the horror comedy. I would like to see less from the start and more from the end because that is the part of the film you want to watch. I think this is a real entertaining film that really does keep you guessing just what will happen next.
Actor Review
Caitlin Stasey: Maddy is the newest addition to the cheer-leading squad who has been against the team captain of the football team for years. When she is killed she comes back with the rest of the team to get revenge on the football team. Caitlin does a good job in the leading role taking a more risky role that goes against most horror clichés.
Tom Williamson: Terry is the captain of the football team and an all around asshole, when he gets into a fight with his girlfriend he runs the cheerleaders off the road killing them all. When they return he ends up becoming the target of their vengeance. Tom creates the asshole persona really well in this film that could make this the most entertaining part when he gets what he deserves.terry
Sianoa Smit-McPhee: Leena is the witch who likes to work with dark magic but when she sees her friends die she brings them all back to life where she doesn’t understand the power she holds. Sianoa does a good job in this role being a completely different image to the rest of the cast.lenna
Brooke Butler: Tracy is the lead cheerleader who lets Maddy into the team, she is dating Terry but she is very insecure. She ends up thinking everyone is her friend but they turn on her quickly. Brooke does a good job in an early role for the young actress with a brave performance.
Support Cast: All Cheerleaders Die has a supporting cast that all play their part be it the football players or the dead cheerleaders who become disposable characters for the main ones to learn their powers.
Director Review: Lucky McKee, Chris Sivertson – The pair bring us a horror comedy that is fun once it all gets going.
Comedy: All Cheerleaders Die has solid comedy throughout which is mostly to do with the reactions of the cheerleaders to what is happening to them.
Horror: All Cheerleaders Die has plenty of blood splatter for all the kills for what the cheerleaders get up to on their revenge path.
Settings: All Cheerleaders Die using the settings all around the high school with the hang outs being away from public viewing which all work for the film.
Special Effects: All Cheerleaders Die has solid special effects with the problems being all too CGI for my liking.
Suggestion: All Cheerleaders Die is one I think the horror fans will enjoy because of the fun gore filled storyline. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Final battle against Terry.
Worst Part: Slow starting.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Left open for one.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes
Tagline: You can’t kill their spirit
Overall: Horror comedy that has laughs and blood for all the fans to enjoy
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/01/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-all-cheerleaders-die-2013/
Once a member of the cheer-leading team we see how she starts pushing them away from the football stars including the captain Terry (Williamson) who ends up causing the deaths of members of the team, but when Leena (Smit-McPhee) a witch brings them back to life, but now they have a craving for human flesh and target Terry for the ultimate revenge.cheerleader
All Cheerleaders Die starts off very slowly for my liking trying to introduce the characters and tease at a massive revenge angle before anything happens. Once the cheerleaders get killed the film steps up and unloads all the horror comedy. I would like to see less from the start and more from the end because that is the part of the film you want to watch. I think this is a real entertaining film that really does keep you guessing just what will happen next.
Actor Review
Caitlin Stasey: Maddy is the newest addition to the cheer-leading squad who has been against the team captain of the football team for years. When she is killed she comes back with the rest of the team to get revenge on the football team. Caitlin does a good job in the leading role taking a more risky role that goes against most horror clichés.
Tom Williamson: Terry is the captain of the football team and an all around asshole, when he gets into a fight with his girlfriend he runs the cheerleaders off the road killing them all. When they return he ends up becoming the target of their vengeance. Tom creates the asshole persona really well in this film that could make this the most entertaining part when he gets what he deserves.terry
Sianoa Smit-McPhee: Leena is the witch who likes to work with dark magic but when she sees her friends die she brings them all back to life where she doesn’t understand the power she holds. Sianoa does a good job in this role being a completely different image to the rest of the cast.lenna
Brooke Butler: Tracy is the lead cheerleader who lets Maddy into the team, she is dating Terry but she is very insecure. She ends up thinking everyone is her friend but they turn on her quickly. Brooke does a good job in an early role for the young actress with a brave performance.
Support Cast: All Cheerleaders Die has a supporting cast that all play their part be it the football players or the dead cheerleaders who become disposable characters for the main ones to learn their powers.
Director Review: Lucky McKee, Chris Sivertson – The pair bring us a horror comedy that is fun once it all gets going.
Comedy: All Cheerleaders Die has solid comedy throughout which is mostly to do with the reactions of the cheerleaders to what is happening to them.
Horror: All Cheerleaders Die has plenty of blood splatter for all the kills for what the cheerleaders get up to on their revenge path.
Settings: All Cheerleaders Die using the settings all around the high school with the hang outs being away from public viewing which all work for the film.
Special Effects: All Cheerleaders Die has solid special effects with the problems being all too CGI for my liking.
Suggestion: All Cheerleaders Die is one I think the horror fans will enjoy because of the fun gore filled storyline. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: Final battle against Terry.
Worst Part: Slow starting.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Left open for one.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes
Tagline: You can’t kill their spirit
Overall: Horror comedy that has laughs and blood for all the fans to enjoy
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/01/01/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-all-cheerleaders-die-2013/
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Animals (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: American Animals starts as we see the heist about to take place, rewinding us 18 months where we meet Spencer Reinhardt (Keoghan) an art student in Transylvania University, struggling with his identity, turning to his streetwise friend Warren Lipka (Peters) the two discuss the potential of stealing rare expensive books from the library.
As the idea turns into a plan they bring in Chas Allen (Jenner) and Eric Borsuk (Abrahamson), can they make this plan come off, well the answer is no because as we see the planning we meet the real thieves now in their 30s discussing what they remember about the idea.
Thoughts on American Animals
Characters – Warren is the streetwise student on a scholarship, not living up to his potential, he will always get things down however illegal they might be. He is the one that brings the team together to make this happen even if he is also the one that gets them in the most problems. Spencer is the art student that comes up with the idea because he is sick of not standing out in the art world, looking for the pain be believes artist require. He is all in with the planning but when it comes to following through he thinks they will need to go too far. Chas is the getaway driver, he has the most money which helps with the planning of the heist. Eric becomes the brains learning where things could and would go wrong if they do it in certain directions. We do also meet the adult versions of these characters in the real version that are looking back on the crime they committed.
Performances – Evan Peters is the clear highlight in this film, he always comes off unpredictable which seeing the older versions of the characters you completely understand too. Barry Keoghan does play the stranger member of the crew well, he is the one that is happy to plan not commit a crime, he needs to be straighter faced than Peters character. When it comes to the rest of the cast they are fine without needing to do that much.
Story – The story here is based on the real story of four university students that robbed the rare book collection in the library of their university. The way the story is told is interesting because it does both help and hinder the film, having a mix of the actors playing the younger versions and the real men talking about the events does give the story a documentary feel. Where this does hinder the story is by telling us that they failed early on and are now just remembering what happen which takes away any excitement or edge of your set moments towards anything going on. There are moments in the story which are good to watch, for example the scene where they are watching heist movies to learn how to pull it off and seeing the pitch perfect plan in Warren’s head. If we are being honest, the story is about 20 minutes too long because the opening hour just drags you along, once the heist gets underway things get more exciting but by then you might see the audience lose interest.
Crime – The crime follows a real heist that happened at the same university, we get to see how it was planned, how things went down and seeing the consequences the boys felt.
Settings – The film is mostly set in and around the university, this helps for any heist film, we do get moments where we step away, but that is for the plan which does work when you see how the boys are out of their depth at times.
Scene of the Movie – Selecting the names.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The first hour.
Final Thoughts – This is an overly long heist movie that drags along at a horribly slow pace, once things kick off we do get some interest, but the fact we have the real criminals involved in telling the story we know the outcome.
Overall: Just watch for Evan Peters being slightly crazy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/08/28/american-animals-2018/
As the idea turns into a plan they bring in Chas Allen (Jenner) and Eric Borsuk (Abrahamson), can they make this plan come off, well the answer is no because as we see the planning we meet the real thieves now in their 30s discussing what they remember about the idea.
Thoughts on American Animals
Characters – Warren is the streetwise student on a scholarship, not living up to his potential, he will always get things down however illegal they might be. He is the one that brings the team together to make this happen even if he is also the one that gets them in the most problems. Spencer is the art student that comes up with the idea because he is sick of not standing out in the art world, looking for the pain be believes artist require. He is all in with the planning but when it comes to following through he thinks they will need to go too far. Chas is the getaway driver, he has the most money which helps with the planning of the heist. Eric becomes the brains learning where things could and would go wrong if they do it in certain directions. We do also meet the adult versions of these characters in the real version that are looking back on the crime they committed.
Performances – Evan Peters is the clear highlight in this film, he always comes off unpredictable which seeing the older versions of the characters you completely understand too. Barry Keoghan does play the stranger member of the crew well, he is the one that is happy to plan not commit a crime, he needs to be straighter faced than Peters character. When it comes to the rest of the cast they are fine without needing to do that much.
Story – The story here is based on the real story of four university students that robbed the rare book collection in the library of their university. The way the story is told is interesting because it does both help and hinder the film, having a mix of the actors playing the younger versions and the real men talking about the events does give the story a documentary feel. Where this does hinder the story is by telling us that they failed early on and are now just remembering what happen which takes away any excitement or edge of your set moments towards anything going on. There are moments in the story which are good to watch, for example the scene where they are watching heist movies to learn how to pull it off and seeing the pitch perfect plan in Warren’s head. If we are being honest, the story is about 20 minutes too long because the opening hour just drags you along, once the heist gets underway things get more exciting but by then you might see the audience lose interest.
Crime – The crime follows a real heist that happened at the same university, we get to see how it was planned, how things went down and seeing the consequences the boys felt.
Settings – The film is mostly set in and around the university, this helps for any heist film, we do get moments where we step away, but that is for the plan which does work when you see how the boys are out of their depth at times.
Scene of the Movie – Selecting the names.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The first hour.
Final Thoughts – This is an overly long heist movie that drags along at a horribly slow pace, once things kick off we do get some interest, but the fact we have the real criminals involved in telling the story we know the outcome.
Overall: Just watch for Evan Peters being slightly crazy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/08/28/american-animals-2018/
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Warcross in Books
Dec 13, 2018
Full review can be found on my blog: www.diaryofdifference.com
A fantasy of a virtual world, and a game that brings people together. A story of a girl that struggles to pay her rent, and her ability to hack the most important game of the year - Warcross. And when the creator of Warcross hires her, needing her help - she begins her adventure.
From the first moment that I read the synopsis of Warcross, I knew I wanted to have this book on my shelf and read it immediately. A couple of reasons stand behind this story:
* A girl is a main character, and a fierce one. As boring it might seem, I love a book with brave characters, especially if it’s a teen girl. I think when girls are featured as brave and fearless in books, it gives encouragement to a lot of girls reading the book, that are struggling through their teenage years.
* I am a vivid video games player. I play a lot of games, and this is something you might not have known about me. Feel free to ask me anything in the comments. I love the gaming community, and I believe that if it weren’t for the video games, I wouldn’t be who I am today.
* If you haven’t read it, you have all probably heard about Ready Player One. I absolutely loved it, and watched the movie, and I am still in love with it. And when book reviewers started comparing Warcross to Ready Player One, I had to see if this was true. I just had to check for myself.
And then, I got this book as a birthday gift from my boyfriend. So here we are, a few reasons after, me having read this book and telling you all what I thought.
Firstly, I feel like I need to say this - Warcross is nothing like Ready Player One.
Yes, we have a virtual world, and (surprise) virtual characters in the world. And yes, there is a game and the creator of the game is involved. But the whole plot and story are so much different in so many ways.
The descriptions of the virtual world, the story lines, the dialogues, the way the story flows, the romance - it is all unique and original.
And for you out there that compare this to Ready Player One - it is as if you are comparing Romeo and Juliet and Tristan and Isolde, only because they both have a plot of romance and forbidden love. It is ridiculous, let me tell you.
Even though the Warcross game as its own was brilliantly explained and described, I felt like we didn’t see much of the rest of the virtual world. I loved the way Marie Lu would talk about the world - so much passion in each chapter.
The discussion opens on virtual reality and the worlds that could be created. It is not a matter of whether it will happen, but when? I keep thinking I might be alive when we will live in a world of ''virtuality''. Would we be happier? Would we be smarter? Or would this just be another tool for people to get richer, by using its users? Is the future scary? Should it be?
Emika is a character I think many girls will relate to. Brave and fierce, even though she is afraid inside. A strong, young woman, that stands for what she believes in, even when this might mean losing the people she loves the most.
The story flows so quickly, and each end of the chapter begs you to start another one, and before you know it, it’s 4am and you keep reading, unable to stop. This book has some strange power right there!
The twists were interesting, even though some of them were predictable. Even with the knowledge of this, I would always miss something amazing, and even knowing what will happen, the experience was always pleasant.
I am so glad I got to read this book, and I am so excited to read Wildcard soon as well. I am definitely recommending this to all of you - I am sure you will enjoy it.
If you have read it, let me know what you think in the comments - I would love to discuss it!
A fantasy of a virtual world, and a game that brings people together. A story of a girl that struggles to pay her rent, and her ability to hack the most important game of the year - Warcross. And when the creator of Warcross hires her, needing her help - she begins her adventure.
From the first moment that I read the synopsis of Warcross, I knew I wanted to have this book on my shelf and read it immediately. A couple of reasons stand behind this story:
* A girl is a main character, and a fierce one. As boring it might seem, I love a book with brave characters, especially if it’s a teen girl. I think when girls are featured as brave and fearless in books, it gives encouragement to a lot of girls reading the book, that are struggling through their teenage years.
* I am a vivid video games player. I play a lot of games, and this is something you might not have known about me. Feel free to ask me anything in the comments. I love the gaming community, and I believe that if it weren’t for the video games, I wouldn’t be who I am today.
* If you haven’t read it, you have all probably heard about Ready Player One. I absolutely loved it, and watched the movie, and I am still in love with it. And when book reviewers started comparing Warcross to Ready Player One, I had to see if this was true. I just had to check for myself.
And then, I got this book as a birthday gift from my boyfriend. So here we are, a few reasons after, me having read this book and telling you all what I thought.
Firstly, I feel like I need to say this - Warcross is nothing like Ready Player One.
Yes, we have a virtual world, and (surprise) virtual characters in the world. And yes, there is a game and the creator of the game is involved. But the whole plot and story are so much different in so many ways.
The descriptions of the virtual world, the story lines, the dialogues, the way the story flows, the romance - it is all unique and original.
And for you out there that compare this to Ready Player One - it is as if you are comparing Romeo and Juliet and Tristan and Isolde, only because they both have a plot of romance and forbidden love. It is ridiculous, let me tell you.
Even though the Warcross game as its own was brilliantly explained and described, I felt like we didn’t see much of the rest of the virtual world. I loved the way Marie Lu would talk about the world - so much passion in each chapter.
The discussion opens on virtual reality and the worlds that could be created. It is not a matter of whether it will happen, but when? I keep thinking I might be alive when we will live in a world of ''virtuality''. Would we be happier? Would we be smarter? Or would this just be another tool for people to get richer, by using its users? Is the future scary? Should it be?
Emika is a character I think many girls will relate to. Brave and fierce, even though she is afraid inside. A strong, young woman, that stands for what she believes in, even when this might mean losing the people she loves the most.
The story flows so quickly, and each end of the chapter begs you to start another one, and before you know it, it’s 4am and you keep reading, unable to stop. This book has some strange power right there!
The twists were interesting, even though some of them were predictable. Even with the knowledge of this, I would always miss something amazing, and even knowing what will happen, the experience was always pleasant.
I am so glad I got to read this book, and I am so excited to read Wildcard soon as well. I am definitely recommending this to all of you - I am sure you will enjoy it.
If you have read it, let me know what you think in the comments - I would love to discuss it!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Sin City (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In a dazzling blend of muted color, violence, and eroticism Frank Millers graphic novel Sin City has burst upon the screen with a visual style that is as diverse as the star studded cast that drives it.
Set in the fictional Basin City, the film is a series of segments that weave in and around each other to tell various stories and side plots without a clear cut beginning and end as the conclusion of one segment often mirrors portions of the events in another.
While the film does not have a linear plot in the traditional sense, each segment is a snapshot of life in Basin City and how it is viewed by the various people that dwell within. It does not take a genius to see that the city is rife with all manner of unsavory characters from child molesters to cannibals. Basin City is also a place where people are not always the sum of their parts as a violent and disfigured thug named Marv (Mickey Rourke) can show humanity and compassion as he attempts to avenge those who were wronged. It is a place where a person with a dubious past and a new face named Dwight (Clive Owen), is town between the life he left behind and his desire to protect those who are in danger.
The film is chocked full of dialogue that is reminiscent of classic pulp novels and comics of the 40’s and 50’s where characters were often as two dimensional as the pages in which their exploits were chronicled. While this at first seems awkward and hokey it tends to grow on you as it is an accurate reflection of the locales and inhabitants that comprise the city.
While most of the film is shot in a black and white style, there are flashes of color that make a gripping contrast to the usually blank characters. Examples of which are seen in many of the films violent action sequences where blood and other gore are used for artistic effect. In one example, graphic shooting segments are left in a muted black and white allowing us to see the gore in a muted sense. The impact of the scene is not lost but it is rendered in an artistic and unique manner that is amazing to see. While you should be horrified at what you see, you find yourself captivated by the clever color and camera work that is used to render the scene. At other times, the crimson color of blood is used to emphasize a scene and illustrate and illuminate a character.
If this sounds confusing, it is due to the fact that to many “Sin City”, is a film that is a unique looking film, that has a pacing and style all its own, and does not play by the traditional rules for a film. While films such as “Heavy Metal” and “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow” have brought graphic novels and visually unique pulp stories to the screen, it is the constant adherence to the source material, and directors Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, and Quentin Tarantinos ability to blend their unique styles seamlessly that makes this film interesting.
The action of the film is very well choreographed and despite being very, very graphic in places, it nonetheless entertains and rarely seems gratuitous. The film also has a surprising amount of comedy as there were several moments that caused the audience at my press screening to erupt.
While it does not offer much in the way of plot or acting, the performances are appropriate to the characters and settings .The all-star cast does a great job in conveying the motivations of their characters as the audience is given just what the need to know about a character to make the segments work.
While the film may not appeal to a mass audience due to the unique look and structure of the film, fans of Tarantino and Rodriguez are likely to embrace this film which should likely result in further adventures in Basin City sometime in the near future.
Set in the fictional Basin City, the film is a series of segments that weave in and around each other to tell various stories and side plots without a clear cut beginning and end as the conclusion of one segment often mirrors portions of the events in another.
While the film does not have a linear plot in the traditional sense, each segment is a snapshot of life in Basin City and how it is viewed by the various people that dwell within. It does not take a genius to see that the city is rife with all manner of unsavory characters from child molesters to cannibals. Basin City is also a place where people are not always the sum of their parts as a violent and disfigured thug named Marv (Mickey Rourke) can show humanity and compassion as he attempts to avenge those who were wronged. It is a place where a person with a dubious past and a new face named Dwight (Clive Owen), is town between the life he left behind and his desire to protect those who are in danger.
The film is chocked full of dialogue that is reminiscent of classic pulp novels and comics of the 40’s and 50’s where characters were often as two dimensional as the pages in which their exploits were chronicled. While this at first seems awkward and hokey it tends to grow on you as it is an accurate reflection of the locales and inhabitants that comprise the city.
While most of the film is shot in a black and white style, there are flashes of color that make a gripping contrast to the usually blank characters. Examples of which are seen in many of the films violent action sequences where blood and other gore are used for artistic effect. In one example, graphic shooting segments are left in a muted black and white allowing us to see the gore in a muted sense. The impact of the scene is not lost but it is rendered in an artistic and unique manner that is amazing to see. While you should be horrified at what you see, you find yourself captivated by the clever color and camera work that is used to render the scene. At other times, the crimson color of blood is used to emphasize a scene and illustrate and illuminate a character.
If this sounds confusing, it is due to the fact that to many “Sin City”, is a film that is a unique looking film, that has a pacing and style all its own, and does not play by the traditional rules for a film. While films such as “Heavy Metal” and “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow” have brought graphic novels and visually unique pulp stories to the screen, it is the constant adherence to the source material, and directors Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, and Quentin Tarantinos ability to blend their unique styles seamlessly that makes this film interesting.
The action of the film is very well choreographed and despite being very, very graphic in places, it nonetheless entertains and rarely seems gratuitous. The film also has a surprising amount of comedy as there were several moments that caused the audience at my press screening to erupt.
While it does not offer much in the way of plot or acting, the performances are appropriate to the characters and settings .The all-star cast does a great job in conveying the motivations of their characters as the audience is given just what the need to know about a character to make the segments work.
While the film may not appeal to a mass audience due to the unique look and structure of the film, fans of Tarantino and Rodriguez are likely to embrace this film which should likely result in further adventures in Basin City sometime in the near future.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bewitched (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Turning a classic television series into a feature film can be a risky proposition. While the built in audience of Baby Boomers and new fans of a show gained through reruns make remakes a potentially lucrative venture, the task of recasting classic characters and modernizing the story to today’s audiences is rife with hazards.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated John Carpenter's Vampires (1998) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
A group of eccentric vampire hunters lead by the rugged and cold-hearted Jack Crow (James Woods) never really stop working. Taking great pride in the fruits of their labor, they work hard and play even harder as their celebrations after a job well done consist of alcohol flowing freely and plenty of women to take their minds off of work. But this particular job didn't go exactly as planned and it's weighing heavily on the mind of Jack Crow. Even after killing what's referred to as a "nest" of nine vampires, the master was no where to be found. Hardly a reason to celebrate in Jack's eyes. Unfortunately, his gut instinct was right as things get a hell of a lot worse for Jack's team when the master shows up to their little shindig. But this master is different from the others; stronger, more powerful, and why does he know Jack's name? There's something more elaborate going on and Jack Crow is going to find out exactly what it is while eradicating as many vampires as he possibly can along the way.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
Judging by the ratings this film has (34% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, 5.8/10 on IMDb), I guess it's safe to say that this could be a guilty pleasure of mine. I love most of John Carpenter's work and I really enjoyed his take on vampires. Jack Crow is certainly reason alone to sit through this and although the character originated in John Steakley's novel, I feel Crow is just as strong of a character in Carpenter's world as Snake Plissken from Escape From New York. Even though he's basically a mean spirited SOB, you can't help but sympathize with the character as the film moves on. Considering all that's happened to him in his lifetime, he seems to be a decent guy deep down underneath that extremely thick and rough exterior. His dialogue was also a lot of fun. Gems such as him asking Father Adam Guiteau if he had wood after the fight they just had or when he's explaining the true mythos behind vampires and to "forget whatever you've seen in the movies" was just classic.
Other than Jack Crow, I actually really enjoyed the storyline which seemed to be a breaking point for a lot of people. A vampire seeking a black cross to finish a reverse exorcism, so he can walk in daylight without turning to dust. Only Carpenter could pull something like that off. Their methods of killing vampires were also a bit more original and unorthodox compared to other vampire films of the past. Jack Crow would shoot an arrow from a crossbow, which would be attached to a wire on the bottom of a jeep that would be reeled in by Daniel Baldwin's Anthony Montoya that would drag the vampire into the sunlight where their body would burst into flames. Maybe it's considered cheesy to some, but it was refreshing to see something different for a change. As big of a horror fan that I am, I don't really think of myself as a fan of vampires. I'm not sure if it's because I'm picky or because it seems like everything is being recycled when it comes to storylines in horror films these days, but I like to think when a vampire film does make an impact on me that it says more than the average horror film containing vampires.
John Carpenter, the master of horror, delivers a refreshing and interesting take on vampires with the aptly named Vampires. It also dawns another strong lead character in a Carpenter film in the form of Jack Crow and contains some of the most witty and enjoyable dialogue of any horror film from the late '90s. The storyline is also magnificently peculiar, which is a definite plus in my book. This would definitely make my list of favorite vampire films, if I ever decided to make one. If you're a fan of John Carpenter and haven't seen this gem, I highly recommend doing so. Or if you have, maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another watch.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Aftermath (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Is there a period piece that Keira Knightley has ever turned down? After seeing her in Colette I retrieved her from the Nutcracker trash can I'd thrown her into and actually looked forward to whatever I was going to see her in next. I sort of wish it hadn't been this film though.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
Ensemble cast (1 more)
Plain good fun
Rebooted again, and just as fun.
One of the pleasant movie surprises of Christmas 2017 for me was "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle". I expected it to be a tired retread of the original classic, but instead it turned into a highly entertaining action comedy. Reading my review again, I was rather po-faced about it and scored it with a rather measly 7/10. But this rather belies my secret love of the movie: it is a film that I can invariably watch and enjoy again and again.
This was also a film that raked in a HUGE return at the box office, getting close to the billion dollar number on its $90 million budget. During the spring of 2018, this was an almost permanent resident at the multiplexes (until "The Greatest Showman" and "Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again" took over the residence for the rest of the year!) . A sequel was inevitable
We rejoin the cast some time after the events of the first film, and the geeky teenage lovers - Spencer and Bethany - are trying, unsuccessfully, to carry on their long distance relationship while at separate colleges. Spencer is struggling mentally; lacking in confidence and momentum and desperate to feel like 'Smoulder' Bravestone again.
On returning to his home town for the holidays, Spencer fixes the shattered game. But the console is unpredictable and when the game sucks people into Jumanji this time it's not just Spencer and two of his friends that go in, but Spencer's Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) and his old friend Milo (Danny Glover).
When they get there though, things have changed and the mission is a different one. A "next level" indeed!
This is very much 'much of the same' from the first film. Yes, there's a different backdrop with desert and mountain 'levels' to play through. But the same fun, with exploding avatars and dangerous cake, is to be had again. The script team had to do something different here, and they did that by mixing up the avatars (including a surprising equine player) and throwing in the 'pensioners' to the mix. There is new fun to be mined here from the now nimble-again Eddie and the slow-talking and laconic Milo never quite getting to the point in time.
The stars were all persuaded back for another ride. The four avatar leads (Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Jack Black and Kevin Hart) all return, together with the young teens (Alex Wolff, Morgan Turner, Ser'Darius Blain and Madison Iseman). Nick Jonas and his older real-life player Colin Hanks are back. Even Nigel "Welcome to Jumanji" Billingsley (Rhys Darby) returns, this time swapping his jeep for a plane.
The newcomers to the cast are also welcome. Glover and DeVito are at their cranky best, and introduce a genuinely touching moment into the film. And a new avatar - Ming Fleetfoot - is fabulous in the form of Awkwafina, so brilliant in this year's "The Farewell".
There's not much more to say on this. If you liked the original, you'll enjoy this one too. Many of the same jokes are trotted out again. The villain (here Rory McCann) is as forgettable as in the first film. It's not breaking any records in terms of originality, but the producers won't mind about that as long as it drags the crowds in again. At the time of writing it has made $320K on its $125K budget, so that seems to be working.
Jake Kasdan is again at the helm. But I really hope enough is enough, and they leave it at this. The mid-credits scene might suggest though that greed is going to dictate a Jumanji 4 (or 5 in some people's books). The returns, I fear, from the franchise will be ever diminishing from this point forwards.
(For the full graphical review go here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-jumanji-the-next-level-2019/ .)
This was also a film that raked in a HUGE return at the box office, getting close to the billion dollar number on its $90 million budget. During the spring of 2018, this was an almost permanent resident at the multiplexes (until "The Greatest Showman" and "Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again" took over the residence for the rest of the year!) . A sequel was inevitable
We rejoin the cast some time after the events of the first film, and the geeky teenage lovers - Spencer and Bethany - are trying, unsuccessfully, to carry on their long distance relationship while at separate colleges. Spencer is struggling mentally; lacking in confidence and momentum and desperate to feel like 'Smoulder' Bravestone again.
On returning to his home town for the holidays, Spencer fixes the shattered game. But the console is unpredictable and when the game sucks people into Jumanji this time it's not just Spencer and two of his friends that go in, but Spencer's Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) and his old friend Milo (Danny Glover).
When they get there though, things have changed and the mission is a different one. A "next level" indeed!
This is very much 'much of the same' from the first film. Yes, there's a different backdrop with desert and mountain 'levels' to play through. But the same fun, with exploding avatars and dangerous cake, is to be had again. The script team had to do something different here, and they did that by mixing up the avatars (including a surprising equine player) and throwing in the 'pensioners' to the mix. There is new fun to be mined here from the now nimble-again Eddie and the slow-talking and laconic Milo never quite getting to the point in time.
The stars were all persuaded back for another ride. The four avatar leads (Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Jack Black and Kevin Hart) all return, together with the young teens (Alex Wolff, Morgan Turner, Ser'Darius Blain and Madison Iseman). Nick Jonas and his older real-life player Colin Hanks are back. Even Nigel "Welcome to Jumanji" Billingsley (Rhys Darby) returns, this time swapping his jeep for a plane.
The newcomers to the cast are also welcome. Glover and DeVito are at their cranky best, and introduce a genuinely touching moment into the film. And a new avatar - Ming Fleetfoot - is fabulous in the form of Awkwafina, so brilliant in this year's "The Farewell".
There's not much more to say on this. If you liked the original, you'll enjoy this one too. Many of the same jokes are trotted out again. The villain (here Rory McCann) is as forgettable as in the first film. It's not breaking any records in terms of originality, but the producers won't mind about that as long as it drags the crowds in again. At the time of writing it has made $320K on its $125K budget, so that seems to be working.
Jake Kasdan is again at the helm. But I really hope enough is enough, and they leave it at this. The mid-credits scene might suggest though that greed is going to dictate a Jumanji 4 (or 5 in some people's books). The returns, I fear, from the franchise will be ever diminishing from this point forwards.
(For the full graphical review go here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-jumanji-the-next-level-2019/ .)
