Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Visual Treat
It was always going to be a tricky proposition to craft a sequel to Ridley Scott’s divisive 1982 film, Blade Runner. By divisive, I mean that while it has gained a cult following in the decades since its initial release, the film’s initial box-office run resulted in a gross that many would label ‘disappointing.’
Stuck in development hell for well over 20 years, Blade Runner 2049 as it’s now known entered the hands of sci-fi aficionado Denis Villeneuve since 2015. But has a wait of over three decades been kind to the finished film?
Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner tasked with tracking down old replicants for the Los Angeles Police Department, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what’s left of society into chaos. His discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner who’s been missing for 30 years.
Visually, Blade Runner 2049 is an absolute masterpiece but from the director of the equally stunning Arrival, this was to be expected. Tasked with taking the first film and crafting a worthy sequel was never going to be an easy ride for Villeneuve and he almost makes it out the other side unscathed, almost.
Our cast is one of the film’s strongest suits with Gosling in particular being as magnetic a presence as ever. It’s also nice to see the wonderful Dave Bautista sink his teeth into something a little grittier than his well-worn Drax persona. Unfortunately, despite being an ever-present feature in the trailers, Harrison Ford is disappointingly underused, though he does appear in 2049’s best sequences.
The cinematography is absolutely beautiful, there really is no other word for it. Bizarrely grounded in reality, the year 2049 is a place that doesn’t feel too far away from the world as we know it. Villeneuve’s metropolis’ live and breathe right before our very eyes with a desolate Las Vegas in particular being a highlight, bathed in an eerie orange glow.
The CGI too is staggering and some of the best seen in the genre. Holograms litter the cityscapes and detail pours out of every frame – Blade Runner 2049 has been meticulously crafted to an incredibly high standard by someone who clearly cares about the legacy this film will leave.
Elsewhere, the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch is exquisite. Blending nostalgic tones with a modern edge, the music is one of the film’s high points and couples with each frame almost perfectly.
So, to look at and to listen to, it’s spectacular. But how does the rest of this sequel fare? Well, not too bad at all really. The story feels linked to the first film in a way that doesn’t tread on its toes. Many long-awaited sequels feel it necessary to shred what came before and try far too hard to craft their own paths. Thankfully, 2049 honours its predecessor in more ways than just sickly nostalgia.
Unfortunately, it’s far too long. At 163 minutes, this is a real slog by anyone’s standards and while it’s true the pacing is spot on, there’s no getting away from the fact that this is a long film and feels it. It would’ve been pretty easy to shave a couple of minutes from the run-time here and there, though it’s not too much of an issue.
My only other bugbear is a pretty big one. Ridley Scott’s ’82 masterpiece was a film that had a soul, despite its plot focusing on those to the contrary. Here, the sheen, the glitz and the polish are all super impressive but much like the replicants our blade runner must hunt, it all feels a touch soulless.
Ultimately, Blade Runner 2049 is a fine sequel to a film that’s been crying out for one since 1982. Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford make a fine pairing despite the latter’s limited screen time but what this film is lacking is heart, and that’s something that can’t be made with stunning cinematography.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/06/blade-runner-2049-review/
Stuck in development hell for well over 20 years, Blade Runner 2049 as it’s now known entered the hands of sci-fi aficionado Denis Villeneuve since 2015. But has a wait of over three decades been kind to the finished film?
Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner tasked with tracking down old replicants for the Los Angeles Police Department, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what’s left of society into chaos. His discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner who’s been missing for 30 years.
Visually, Blade Runner 2049 is an absolute masterpiece but from the director of the equally stunning Arrival, this was to be expected. Tasked with taking the first film and crafting a worthy sequel was never going to be an easy ride for Villeneuve and he almost makes it out the other side unscathed, almost.
Our cast is one of the film’s strongest suits with Gosling in particular being as magnetic a presence as ever. It’s also nice to see the wonderful Dave Bautista sink his teeth into something a little grittier than his well-worn Drax persona. Unfortunately, despite being an ever-present feature in the trailers, Harrison Ford is disappointingly underused, though he does appear in 2049’s best sequences.
The cinematography is absolutely beautiful, there really is no other word for it. Bizarrely grounded in reality, the year 2049 is a place that doesn’t feel too far away from the world as we know it. Villeneuve’s metropolis’ live and breathe right before our very eyes with a desolate Las Vegas in particular being a highlight, bathed in an eerie orange glow.
The CGI too is staggering and some of the best seen in the genre. Holograms litter the cityscapes and detail pours out of every frame – Blade Runner 2049 has been meticulously crafted to an incredibly high standard by someone who clearly cares about the legacy this film will leave.
Elsewhere, the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch is exquisite. Blending nostalgic tones with a modern edge, the music is one of the film’s high points and couples with each frame almost perfectly.
So, to look at and to listen to, it’s spectacular. But how does the rest of this sequel fare? Well, not too bad at all really. The story feels linked to the first film in a way that doesn’t tread on its toes. Many long-awaited sequels feel it necessary to shred what came before and try far too hard to craft their own paths. Thankfully, 2049 honours its predecessor in more ways than just sickly nostalgia.
Unfortunately, it’s far too long. At 163 minutes, this is a real slog by anyone’s standards and while it’s true the pacing is spot on, there’s no getting away from the fact that this is a long film and feels it. It would’ve been pretty easy to shave a couple of minutes from the run-time here and there, though it’s not too much of an issue.
My only other bugbear is a pretty big one. Ridley Scott’s ’82 masterpiece was a film that had a soul, despite its plot focusing on those to the contrary. Here, the sheen, the glitz and the polish are all super impressive but much like the replicants our blade runner must hunt, it all feels a touch soulless.
Ultimately, Blade Runner 2049 is a fine sequel to a film that’s been crying out for one since 1982. Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford make a fine pairing despite the latter’s limited screen time but what this film is lacking is heart, and that’s something that can’t be made with stunning cinematography.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/06/blade-runner-2049-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Baby Monitor 3G
Lifestyle and Health & Fitness
App
The First HD quality multiplatform Baby Monitor is here! BABY MONITOR 3G is a universal video and...
Universalis
Lifestyle and Reference
App
Join the thousands of people who use Universalis daily! You will get: • The Catholic liturgical...
Fireman Sam - Fire & Rescue
Games and Entertainment
App
OFFICIAL LICENSED FIREMAN SAM APP New FREE Ocean Rescue Themed Update: Includes an 25 Extra...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the crisis into mid-life crisis.
“Do you think your life has turned into something you never intended?” So asks Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) to her young assistant, who obviously looks baffled. “Of course, not – you’re still young”. Susan is in a mid-life crisis. While successful within the opulent Los Angeles art scene her personal life is crashing to the ground around her: her marriage (to Hutton (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) ) appears to be cooling fast amid financial worries.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
Top Girl Parking Story: Fashion Driving School
Games and Sports
App
Girls, are you ready for fun? Cuteness overload! This game is dedicated for you! Girl Driving &...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Serenity (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Years ago, Star Trek found new life after network cancellation, and gained new legions of fans through syndication, films, spin off series, and countless novels.
While networks have often had a love/hate relationship with Science Fiction shows, few can debate that shows such as Battlestar Galactica, Smallville, Buffy, and The X-Files have proven to be profitable investments for the studios that created them.
Sadly for fans and viewers alike, for every hit there are at least three failures such as The Lone Gunmen, Space Rangers, and Earth 2. Then you get the shows such as Enterprise, Crusade and Firefly that get cancelled before their time, leaving legions of fans to ponder what might have been had the shows been allowed to continue their productions.
When FOX cancelled the show Firefly after a handful of episodes, fans were outraged. The show had developed a loyal following, but did not meet what the studio was after, leaving it as just another failed series.
Thanks to strong DVD sales, the shows creator Joss Whedon was given the chance to bring his series to the big screen and after months and months of delays, the film Serenity has finally been released.
I would like to say at the outset that while I was not a fan of the show, I did catch it in reruns and grew to appreciate much of the quality that was in the show. With my new found appreciation of the show and amidst the wave of growing hype around the release, I attended an early screener of the film several weeks back anxious to see what the excitement was all about.
The film revolves around the crew of a Firefly class ship named Serenity whose Captain Mal (Nathan Fillion), is a former soldier who survived the battle of Serenity Valley during a period of galactic unrest. Mal makes a living as rogue trying to stay ahead of the Alliance and various threats such as the deadly cannibalistic Reavers.
The story involves a young girl named River (Summer Glau) and her physician brother Simon (Sean Maher). The two are fleeing the Alliance where River was being honed to be a weapon of amazing abilities.
In the aftermath of a mission where the deadly Reavers arrive, Mal and the crew find themselves fleeing an Alliance assassin, who has brought the overwhelming might of the Alliance to bear in an effort to capture River.
Of course Mal with no love of the Alliance will not allow this even though many in his crew see new harm in saving their necks by turning her over. As the film unfolds it leads to the discovery of why the Alliance is so desperate to keep the knowledge River has obtained a secret and a deadly confrontation between the crew, the Reavers, and the Alliance.
As much as I tried to like this film, I was unable to. The film plods along for almost 90 minutes before getting to any sustained action, and when it finally does arrive, it is so by the book and underwhelming, I felt cheated. Two gigantic fleets converge and I think we are going to get a grand battle. Instead, the film gives us about 90 seconds of action only to take the story to a bland locale in a poorly decorated and conceived set.
After sitting through such a large setup, and enduring a cast that often is about as exciting in this film as watching paint dry, I thought something more should be done. I would have expected this from a show that was on television, but for a film version, it was lacking much of the energy that is needed to maintain a feature films.
I am not saying that the cast are bad actors, far from it, but they spend a lot of the film with a dear in the headlights look that underscores that this is first and foremost a TV. show. As such, the cast and many of the sets and effects seem underpowered in the transition to the screen.
The entire length of the film, I thought I was watching an inexpensive television series rather than a major studio release. As such, I had a hard time caring for the characters.
A few nights ago I watched another episode of the series on the Sci Fi Channel and I was amazed at how interesting the characters were, how engrossing the story was, and how much humor and action it had. While the film attempts to convey this, much of it falls flat. Serenity will make a good film series with a bit more effort, but as it stands now, the film is little more than a TV movie of the week for die hard fans only. This is sad as with a bit more polish it could have, and should have been much, much more.
While networks have often had a love/hate relationship with Science Fiction shows, few can debate that shows such as Battlestar Galactica, Smallville, Buffy, and The X-Files have proven to be profitable investments for the studios that created them.
Sadly for fans and viewers alike, for every hit there are at least three failures such as The Lone Gunmen, Space Rangers, and Earth 2. Then you get the shows such as Enterprise, Crusade and Firefly that get cancelled before their time, leaving legions of fans to ponder what might have been had the shows been allowed to continue their productions.
When FOX cancelled the show Firefly after a handful of episodes, fans were outraged. The show had developed a loyal following, but did not meet what the studio was after, leaving it as just another failed series.
Thanks to strong DVD sales, the shows creator Joss Whedon was given the chance to bring his series to the big screen and after months and months of delays, the film Serenity has finally been released.
I would like to say at the outset that while I was not a fan of the show, I did catch it in reruns and grew to appreciate much of the quality that was in the show. With my new found appreciation of the show and amidst the wave of growing hype around the release, I attended an early screener of the film several weeks back anxious to see what the excitement was all about.
The film revolves around the crew of a Firefly class ship named Serenity whose Captain Mal (Nathan Fillion), is a former soldier who survived the battle of Serenity Valley during a period of galactic unrest. Mal makes a living as rogue trying to stay ahead of the Alliance and various threats such as the deadly cannibalistic Reavers.
The story involves a young girl named River (Summer Glau) and her physician brother Simon (Sean Maher). The two are fleeing the Alliance where River was being honed to be a weapon of amazing abilities.
In the aftermath of a mission where the deadly Reavers arrive, Mal and the crew find themselves fleeing an Alliance assassin, who has brought the overwhelming might of the Alliance to bear in an effort to capture River.
Of course Mal with no love of the Alliance will not allow this even though many in his crew see new harm in saving their necks by turning her over. As the film unfolds it leads to the discovery of why the Alliance is so desperate to keep the knowledge River has obtained a secret and a deadly confrontation between the crew, the Reavers, and the Alliance.
As much as I tried to like this film, I was unable to. The film plods along for almost 90 minutes before getting to any sustained action, and when it finally does arrive, it is so by the book and underwhelming, I felt cheated. Two gigantic fleets converge and I think we are going to get a grand battle. Instead, the film gives us about 90 seconds of action only to take the story to a bland locale in a poorly decorated and conceived set.
After sitting through such a large setup, and enduring a cast that often is about as exciting in this film as watching paint dry, I thought something more should be done. I would have expected this from a show that was on television, but for a film version, it was lacking much of the energy that is needed to maintain a feature films.
I am not saying that the cast are bad actors, far from it, but they spend a lot of the film with a dear in the headlights look that underscores that this is first and foremost a TV. show. As such, the cast and many of the sets and effects seem underpowered in the transition to the screen.
The entire length of the film, I thought I was watching an inexpensive television series rather than a major studio release. As such, I had a hard time caring for the characters.
A few nights ago I watched another episode of the series on the Sci Fi Channel and I was amazed at how interesting the characters were, how engrossing the story was, and how much humor and action it had. While the film attempts to convey this, much of it falls flat. Serenity will make a good film series with a bit more effort, but as it stands now, the film is little more than a TV movie of the week for die hard fans only. This is sad as with a bit more polish it could have, and should have been much, much more.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Fallout 4 in Video Games
Jul 20, 2017
More Fallout (1 more)
Crafting system
It's Good To Be Back
To be honest, I thought I would have a lot more to talk about in my review. I was prepared to write a War and Peace style essay on how great Fallout 4 was and yet I find myself struggling to live up to that notion. Not because the game isn’t good, Fallout 4 is exactly what we have been waiting all these years for, but that’s just it. This game is exactly what we were hoping for and nothing more, which is more than fine with me. Playing this game for the first time feels like slipping on an old pair of comfortable slippers, the controls all come back to you immediately, the charm of a Fallout game is immediately present and it feels like you are right back at home. The world is vast, beautiful in parts and grotesque in others and I’m not just talking about the intentional aesthetic ugliness of the game’s world. Streched textures, dated character models, stiff animation loops, clipping, short draw distance and technical glitches are just some of the problems that come with Bethesda using the dated Creation Engine to create their first ‘next gen’ open world game. The best thing graphically in this game is the lighting effects and the more vibrant colour pallet. When the rays of sunshine hit the trees of Sanctuary Hills at the right moment this game can actually look quite beautiful, but that is immediately lost when you turn around and see the eerie face of Mama Murphy. So the presentation could be better, but I feel that’s to be expected from a Bethesda game and that is the problem. This shouldn’t be ‘expected’ from any game in 2015, if CD Projekt Red and Kojima Productions can produce large scale open world games that actually look like they were made this year and not a decade ago, then there is no real reason that Bethesda can’t. However even with all of these flaws and complaints that we really shouldn’t have to continually endure, Fallout 4 is still my GOTY. I mean all Fallout 4 had to do to be my GOTY was to be more of Fallout 3 and that is exactly what it is. The shooting is still clunky but I am a big fan of the VATS system and I’m really glad that they decided to keep the feature and it feels good to get back to being the loot addict that I am. Now, even the junk has a significant use! The crafting system in this game is such an awesome addition, I mean it obviously has its flaws as it isn’t the smoothest crafting system I have ever used, but in a game like fallout it just makes so much sense. I’m not really into the weapon, armour, chemistry or cooking crafting stations, but the ability to build your own settlements is awesome. It genuinely has stopped me from progressing the main quest. No spoilers, but I am at the part where you have to choose a faction to side with in the run up to the end of the game, but I couldn’t care less about any of that, I’m quite happy to just keep building up my settlements. That’s not to say that the quests and characters in this game aren’t interesting, because they are. The companions are all quite interesting, even if there is a strange lack of female options for a companion. The worst companion though, by far, is Dogmeat. He is the worst programmed and therefore the most broken. Constantly blocking corridors and doorways, not fetching items for you when they are within reaching distance and just being a general annoyance, he goes from being cute to irritant in a couple of short hours. The voice acting is also something that varies like crazy. Both the male and female protagonists are voiced excellently, (even if it is a Caucasian man and woman doing the voices, which means if your character is any other ethnicity, they will still sound white,) but the other voices of NPC’s etc are wooden and downright awful in places. The areas in this game are cool, they add to the tone and the immersion, as do the sound effects and score, but there is a level of polish that is absent here and there is no reason for it, it just lets the game down and prevents reviewers from giving that perfect 10 score. People on the internet have gave the dialogue system a lot of hate and while I can see where that is coming from, I personally think it functions fine.
Fallout 4 isn’t going to break any major grounds, it isn’t going to change the gaming landscape on any grand scale and it does feel like an old game and I’m okay with all of that. This is my GOTY because it’s more Fallout and that was all that I needed it to be. Sure it would have been nicer if the game looked a bit prettier and some of the systems were a bit smoother, but to be back in the wasteland, taking part in random battles that break out beside you as you wander through this dead world and looting until you can’t walk properly, it brings the feelings out in me that I haven’t felt since Fallout 3.
Fallout 4 isn’t going to break any major grounds, it isn’t going to change the gaming landscape on any grand scale and it does feel like an old game and I’m okay with all of that. This is my GOTY because it’s more Fallout and that was all that I needed it to be. Sure it would have been nicer if the game looked a bit prettier and some of the systems were a bit smoother, but to be back in the wasteland, taking part in random battles that break out beside you as you wander through this dead world and looting until you can’t walk properly, it brings the feelings out in me that I haven’t felt since Fallout 3.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Heart-Shaped Box in Books
Jun 18, 2019
Unlikable characters (1 more)
Parts that weren't needed
Which one of us hasn't imagined being a successful rock star? The main character of this novel is an aging one, who has become the stereo-typical hard-ass that is expected of a death metal rock star. We begin with Judas Coyne, who hasn't made an album in years, and who is constantly running from his past- - -a habit he acquired when he ran away from home in Louisiana at the age of 19, and this is the problem that permeates Hill's 'Heart-Shaped Box.'
'Heart-Shaped Box' does a successful job of not only painting a picture of ghosts, but also of the spirits that reside in animals (like a witch's familiar), but the likable characters in this book are few and far between. Coyne treats women as objects(he literally only calls them by the State name they are from,such as Florida), and also ended his own marriage by refusing to throw away a snuff film he had obtained from a police. When the story begins, Coyne is shacked up with a young woman (nearly 30 years younger) he calls Georgia; she is described as a stereo-typical goth: black hair, black nail polish, pale white skin. This description of the women Coyne has been with seem to be about the same, but maybe a different hair color, but any other woman that is ever mentioned in the book is either very old or very overweight.
Coyne, a collector of all things dark, buys a dead man's suit that is supposedly haunted by a woman's deceased stepfather. Quite quickly things begin to happen after the suit arrives, including a decaying smell, first noticed by Coyne's 'girlfriend,' Georgia: " I know. I was wondering if there was something in one of the pockets. Something going bad. Old food." She makes Coyne take a look at the suit to see if there is something dead inside of it, but he never finds the source of the smell. Instead, he finds a picture of a young girl in one of the pockets, a girl that is very familiar to Coyne, a girl he once called 'Florida.'
Coyne doesn't seem to take any of the signs seriously that he may be haunted by a ghost that wants to harm him and anyone who comes in contact with him. Until Coyne finds himself sitting inside his restored vintage Mustang in a closed-off barn: " He snorted softly to himself. It wasn't selling souls that got you into trouble, it was buying them. Next time he would have to make sure there was a return policy. He laughed, opened his eyes a little. The dead man, Craddock, sat in the passenger seat next to him. He smiled at Jude, to show stained teeth and a black tongue. He smelled of death, also of car exhaust. His eyes were hidden behind those odd, continuously moving black brushstrokes."
Craddock turns out to be, without giving too much away, a man who was a spiritualist in his living life. He wants nothing but pain and misery for Coyne, who happened to kick his young step daughter to the curb a year before. The parts of the story that deal with both Coyne and Craddock interacting are the most interesting ones. Without these interactions, the story would have fallen very short.
That said, 'Heart-Shaped Box' had quite a few faults to it. Readers may notice that some pages contradict themselves on the very next page, Hill's overuse of Georgia's bangs (hair) as a description for all of her facial expressions, also Hill's habit of being repetitive with words that he uses to describe most things, the unbelievable part where Coyne- - - a collector of occult items- - - claims he has never used a Ouija board before (and lacks the knowledge of how to use one), and last but not least, chapter 34, a chapter that was not needed and completely stopped the story in it's tracks.
And speaking of things that were not needed in the story- - - a part where Georgia has a gun in her mouth, ready to commit suicide, Coyne can only think to remove the gun and replace it with his penis. I understand that Hill may have been going for unlikable characters from the beginning, to really have Coyne play the part of a jaded man, but sometimes Hill seems to go too far. Every book has to have a character to root for, otherwise your readers will put the book down, luckily, this book has Bammy; she is Georgia's grandmother, unfortunately, in less than 15 pages, she never appears in the story again. "You strung out? Christ. You smell like a dog." Bammy says to Georgia after she and Coyne show up at her home.
Is this book a good ghost story, yes, is this story a great horror story, no. Hill lacks on likable characters enough that I don't think a lot of people could enjoy this book. If I were to recommend it, I wouldn't recommend it to teenagers because of a much talked about snuff film, drugs and suicide. I don't think I would read this again.
'Heart-Shaped Box' does a successful job of not only painting a picture of ghosts, but also of the spirits that reside in animals (like a witch's familiar), but the likable characters in this book are few and far between. Coyne treats women as objects(he literally only calls them by the State name they are from,such as Florida), and also ended his own marriage by refusing to throw away a snuff film he had obtained from a police. When the story begins, Coyne is shacked up with a young woman (nearly 30 years younger) he calls Georgia; she is described as a stereo-typical goth: black hair, black nail polish, pale white skin. This description of the women Coyne has been with seem to be about the same, but maybe a different hair color, but any other woman that is ever mentioned in the book is either very old or very overweight.
Coyne, a collector of all things dark, buys a dead man's suit that is supposedly haunted by a woman's deceased stepfather. Quite quickly things begin to happen after the suit arrives, including a decaying smell, first noticed by Coyne's 'girlfriend,' Georgia: " I know. I was wondering if there was something in one of the pockets. Something going bad. Old food." She makes Coyne take a look at the suit to see if there is something dead inside of it, but he never finds the source of the smell. Instead, he finds a picture of a young girl in one of the pockets, a girl that is very familiar to Coyne, a girl he once called 'Florida.'
Coyne doesn't seem to take any of the signs seriously that he may be haunted by a ghost that wants to harm him and anyone who comes in contact with him. Until Coyne finds himself sitting inside his restored vintage Mustang in a closed-off barn: " He snorted softly to himself. It wasn't selling souls that got you into trouble, it was buying them. Next time he would have to make sure there was a return policy. He laughed, opened his eyes a little. The dead man, Craddock, sat in the passenger seat next to him. He smiled at Jude, to show stained teeth and a black tongue. He smelled of death, also of car exhaust. His eyes were hidden behind those odd, continuously moving black brushstrokes."
Craddock turns out to be, without giving too much away, a man who was a spiritualist in his living life. He wants nothing but pain and misery for Coyne, who happened to kick his young step daughter to the curb a year before. The parts of the story that deal with both Coyne and Craddock interacting are the most interesting ones. Without these interactions, the story would have fallen very short.
That said, 'Heart-Shaped Box' had quite a few faults to it. Readers may notice that some pages contradict themselves on the very next page, Hill's overuse of Georgia's bangs (hair) as a description for all of her facial expressions, also Hill's habit of being repetitive with words that he uses to describe most things, the unbelievable part where Coyne- - - a collector of occult items- - - claims he has never used a Ouija board before (and lacks the knowledge of how to use one), and last but not least, chapter 34, a chapter that was not needed and completely stopped the story in it's tracks.
And speaking of things that were not needed in the story- - - a part where Georgia has a gun in her mouth, ready to commit suicide, Coyne can only think to remove the gun and replace it with his penis. I understand that Hill may have been going for unlikable characters from the beginning, to really have Coyne play the part of a jaded man, but sometimes Hill seems to go too far. Every book has to have a character to root for, otherwise your readers will put the book down, luckily, this book has Bammy; she is Georgia's grandmother, unfortunately, in less than 15 pages, she never appears in the story again. "You strung out? Christ. You smell like a dog." Bammy says to Georgia after she and Coyne show up at her home.
Is this book a good ghost story, yes, is this story a great horror story, no. Hill lacks on likable characters enough that I don't think a lot of people could enjoy this book. If I were to recommend it, I wouldn't recommend it to teenagers because of a much talked about snuff film, drugs and suicide. I don't think I would read this again.