Search
Search results
Tom Turner (388 KP) rated Planet Of The Apes in Books
Apr 29, 2021
When the Tim Burton remake of the 1969 movie was released there was an uproar, essentially because they had changed the twist ending. True, the twist the Burton film came up with was awful, but there is an irony in that uproar. You see, that classic twist from the original movie is not the twist in this book! I'm not going to say what that twist is, but thankfully it is on a part with the one we all know and live.
I love this novel, and really wish more people were aware it existed. I wouldn't be surprised if some people avoided it believing it to be a novelization of the movie, but no, this was published six years before the original movie! I think this is a must read for any science fiction fan, and movie historian.
I love this novel, and really wish more people were aware it existed. I wouldn't be surprised if some people avoided it believing it to be a novelization of the movie, but no, this was published six years before the original movie! I think this is a must read for any science fiction fan, and movie historian.
Dork_knight74 (881 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Aug 29, 2019
Fun!
Took me a while to finally watch this one. There have been more than a couple "not-so-good" godzilla movies made that made me wary. This one, however, turned out pretty good. The acting was good(Millie Bobby Brown impresses again), the cinematography/ effects were great. I appreciate that they went with the "older" look to the monsters(they were awesome). The action scenes were intense and the story(whilst taking a lot-and I mean a LOT-of liberties with science and nature) was very entertaining. A few cheesy jokes, a corny scene here and there, a couple jump scares and the remake of the Godzilla song thrown in make this a fun watch for everyone. This is what a movie should be-entertaining and fun(even with the socio-political undertones). REALLY worth a watch!
Bostonian916 (449 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Aug 17, 2020
To say that I was nervous to watch this adaptation would be a huge understatement. I was concerned that Disney was going to attempt to remake the magic of the animated original, and the last thing I wanted to watch was that failed attempt.
I was pleasantly surprised to find out that there was no effort made to recreate the original in live action form. While the story remained primarily intact, the execution and performances were both great in their own rite without attempting to ride the coat tails of the original. All the while, Disney was actually able to pay tasteful homage to the original without doing so distastefully.
Nice little movie. Will Smith actually did very well as the genie, which he found a way to make completely separate and original from the Robin Williams adaptation.
I was pleasantly surprised to find out that there was no effort made to recreate the original in live action form. While the story remained primarily intact, the execution and performances were both great in their own rite without attempting to ride the coat tails of the original. All the while, Disney was actually able to pay tasteful homage to the original without doing so distastefully.
Nice little movie. Will Smith actually did very well as the genie, which he found a way to make completely separate and original from the Robin Williams adaptation.
David McK (3562 KP) rated The Italian Job (2003) in Movies
May 2, 2021 (Updated Aug 4, 2024)
All i can really remember about the 1969 original is that it is a crime caper, starring Michael Caine, and that it involves Mini Coopers.
As such, I'm not sure whether to class this as a remake, a reimagining or something else entirely!
This version stars Mark Wahoberg, Cherlize Theron, Donald Sutherland, Jason Staham and Oz-from-Buffy (Seth Green) and starts with a heist in Venice: a successful heist, with the perpetrators then betrayed by Ed Norton's 'Steve', who leaves them all for dead.
The rest of the film - mainly set in the States - then follows the remainder of the crew and their quest to get even against Steve, in a plot that yes, once again, involves the use of Mini Coopers!
It would hardly be The Italian Job without said cars, after all ....
As such, I'm not sure whether to class this as a remake, a reimagining or something else entirely!
This version stars Mark Wahoberg, Cherlize Theron, Donald Sutherland, Jason Staham and Oz-from-Buffy (Seth Green) and starts with a heist in Venice: a successful heist, with the perpetrators then betrayed by Ed Norton's 'Steve', who leaves them all for dead.
The rest of the film - mainly set in the States - then follows the remainder of the crew and their quest to get even against Steve, in a plot that yes, once again, involves the use of Mini Coopers!
It would hardly be The Italian Job without said cars, after all ....
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
BobbiesDustyPages (1259 KP) rated Westworld - Season 1 in TV
Sep 5, 2017
Characters (2 more)
plot
That season finale
Though a remake it is still such a unique concept.
Westworld started off as being just interesting enough for me to keep coming back for more but at the same time I didn't fall in love with it as fast or as hard as a lot of other people did, but by the season finale I was so hooked even though I guessed the major plot twist part way through the season that the thought of waiting for season 2 was heartbreaking.
The concept of the show is such a unique idea and I love how it shows people at their worst when they have free reign of their own stories, there are a lot of plot twist and even though I figured out most of them it really didn't takeaway from the show at all.
The concept of the show is such a unique idea and I love how it shows people at their worst when they have free reign of their own stories, there are a lot of plot twist and even though I figured out most of them it really didn't takeaway from the show at all.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Omen (2006) in Movies
Mar 1, 2018
Bafflingly superfluous and redundant mid-budget remake of the classic horror blockbuster. American diplomat and his wife discover their adopted son is a right little devil.
In no way an actively bad film, but given it cleaves so closely to the original, what exactly is the point of it? You would expect that the inclusion of a top-billed Julia Stiles would mean the character of Thorn's wife would be beefed up and given a little bit of agency in the plot (heaven knows she could use some); but no, the focus is still on the manly men doing masculine male things together. Pretty well cast, but you could guess who's playing which part just from looking at a list of actors, it is that unimaginative and unsurprising. Worth watching only if you've never seen the original and are unlikely ever to do so.
In no way an actively bad film, but given it cleaves so closely to the original, what exactly is the point of it? You would expect that the inclusion of a top-billed Julia Stiles would mean the character of Thorn's wife would be beefed up and given a little bit of agency in the plot (heaven knows she could use some); but no, the focus is still on the manly men doing masculine male things together. Pretty well cast, but you could guess who's playing which part just from looking at a list of actors, it is that unimaginative and unsurprising. Worth watching only if you've never seen the original and are unlikely ever to do so.
Dean (6927 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Feb 21, 2018
Great update
I thought this was a very good film and a great remake. It's not entirely scene for scene like some and gives a lot more time to Michael as a young boy and reasons for him to turn evil. Rather than just a madman on the run from the asylum. Although some key scenes are kept and a few are changed slightly for the update, why change what worked so well in the original. Some people will just rate down remakes just for the sake of it, but seriously Halloween might have been scary if you saw it in your teens but today? This builds on what was a great horror classic and adds a few touches, more of a back story, a bit more violent and sexed up a little for todays audience. Whether you have seen the original or not you should check this out.
JSA the Golden Age
Book
From STARMAN scribe James Robinson, and in the beautiful Deluxe Edition format, comes an alternate...
Hag-Seed: The Tempest Retold
9.0
Rate It
Book
LONGLISTED FOR THE BAILEYS WOMEN'S PRIZE FOR FICTION 2017. Selected as a Book of the Year -...