Search
Search results
Leisure Suit Larry: Reloaded
Games
App
It’s not just the funniest game you've ever played… …it’s also the most infamous video game...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Marvels (2022) in Movies
Nov 10, 2023
Fun. Lightweight Romp
If you, like many others, have opted out of the past few Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films and are, likewise, suffering from “SuperHero” fatigue but are now looking for a re-entry into the MCU, then THE MARVELS is the film for you, for unlike some previous MCU films, it does not take much in the way of previous knowledge to get into the flow of this (somewhat) lightweight, fun action comic-book flick.
Academy Award winner Brie Larson returns as Captain Marvel and is joined (literally) with Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris - who’s SuperHero Origin story can be found in the DisneyPlus TV Series WANDAVISION, but is summed up pretty quickly here, so you’ll get the drift) as well as young MS. MARVEL (Iman Vellani, who’s origin story is told in the DisnePlus TV Series MS. MARVEL but who’s story is summed pretty quickly - and pretty well - here). They join forces to fight a villain, Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton) intent on inflicting revenge/punishment on Captain Marvel. Also along for the ride is good ol’ Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury (in his 15th appearance in an MCU vehicle). They all bounce around the scenarios with a winking knowledge - and earnestness - about what kind of movie they are making…and with which what tone they need to hit.
In the hands of Director Nia DaCosta (the 2020 remake of CANDYMAN), THE MARVELS moves along at a brisk pace, injecting some humor and decent (enough) action sequences and CGI mixed in with a clever segment or 2 (one scene set to a classic Musical Theater song is worth the price of admission in and of itself). There is enough light, breezy sequences and banter that the main word that comes out of this film is “fun”. DaCosta succeeds, very well, with fun in this film. Where she doesn’t succeed as well is in emotional heft. Captain Marvel is given a few “self reflective” moments and while Larson is a terrific actor and tries to succeed with these moments, they didn’t feel earned, so they fell flat. Unfortunately, the other characters are there to battle and throw off one-liners…and not much more.
Wisely, DaCosta limits this film to 1 hours and 45 minutes - the shortest MCU film to date - and this is a positive for she just “gets to it” and doesn’t linger on any of the moments that don’t work or would fall apart if anyone had anytime to think about them.
And, of course, the “extra scenes” (an MCU staple) set up 2 new franchises, so you want to stick around for them (but you don’t need to stick around to the end of the credits).
All-in-all - Ms. Marvel is a fun, lightweight romp that will entertain for the time you are in the cineplex. But not much more. But…isn’t that what going to the movies is all about?
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Academy Award winner Brie Larson returns as Captain Marvel and is joined (literally) with Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris - who’s SuperHero Origin story can be found in the DisneyPlus TV Series WANDAVISION, but is summed up pretty quickly here, so you’ll get the drift) as well as young MS. MARVEL (Iman Vellani, who’s origin story is told in the DisnePlus TV Series MS. MARVEL but who’s story is summed pretty quickly - and pretty well - here). They join forces to fight a villain, Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton) intent on inflicting revenge/punishment on Captain Marvel. Also along for the ride is good ol’ Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury (in his 15th appearance in an MCU vehicle). They all bounce around the scenarios with a winking knowledge - and earnestness - about what kind of movie they are making…and with which what tone they need to hit.
In the hands of Director Nia DaCosta (the 2020 remake of CANDYMAN), THE MARVELS moves along at a brisk pace, injecting some humor and decent (enough) action sequences and CGI mixed in with a clever segment or 2 (one scene set to a classic Musical Theater song is worth the price of admission in and of itself). There is enough light, breezy sequences and banter that the main word that comes out of this film is “fun”. DaCosta succeeds, very well, with fun in this film. Where she doesn’t succeed as well is in emotional heft. Captain Marvel is given a few “self reflective” moments and while Larson is a terrific actor and tries to succeed with these moments, they didn’t feel earned, so they fell flat. Unfortunately, the other characters are there to battle and throw off one-liners…and not much more.
Wisely, DaCosta limits this film to 1 hours and 45 minutes - the shortest MCU film to date - and this is a positive for she just “gets to it” and doesn’t linger on any of the moments that don’t work or would fall apart if anyone had anytime to think about them.
And, of course, the “extra scenes” (an MCU staple) set up 2 new franchises, so you want to stick around for them (but you don’t need to stick around to the end of the credits).
All-in-all - Ms. Marvel is a fun, lightweight romp that will entertain for the time you are in the cineplex. But not much more. But…isn’t that what going to the movies is all about?
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Amanda (96 KP) rated Wandering in Wonderland (Book #1) in Books
Apr 1, 2019
Lewis Carroll didn’t get it right?
A GIANT thank you and gratitude to The Parliament House publishing and the author for giving me this opportunity to read this book. I did a cover reveal and I knew right off the bat that I was going to love this book. I was right.
We follow Jessica whom eats a bit of cookie and winds up forgetting her past life. Once she is told that she has died and is now in Wonderland, Jessica struggles with the acclimation of this unique land that is only read in a book. She’s escorted by a White Rabbit named Horace (Not a genuine rabbit, but in this story, White Rabbits is Wonderland’s term for queen’s guards). She comes across Rion, the Caterpillar (but disguised as a man at the time) and he gives her a journal that belonged to a Hatter named Rorie (quite a few R names here.)
Anyway, she is taken to the Queen of Hearts, whom happens to be Alice. As a new comer to Wonderland, the new comers are to look through the Looking Glass to show where they are meant to be in Wonderland. You could be a Crafter or a part of the court, the Looking Glass shows you who you are. When Jessica looks through the glass, she is struck as are the other members of the palace that she is shown to be a Spade.
Spades declared ware on the palace before Alice took the throne. Wonderland is a magical place, but it can choose who it likes and doesn’t like, and who gets to leave and stay.
I don’t want to give away too much, so I’ll stop there for time being.
I’m going to be the first to say that Alice in Wonderland is not my favorite story. I don’t like the Disney cartoon (though I did as a child, what was I thinking?) I do love Tim Burton’s spin on it (IT’S NOT A REMAKE!) but the original story I just couldn’t get into it. The summary and the excerpt to this story was just too good to pass up. I had a feeling I would enjoy the story, I just didn’t realize how much I would.
I read this in days (would have been less if I didn’t have a full time job). It’s a unique spin on the story. This isn’t so much as a retelling as it is a what if or an addition to it if Alice became the queen of hearts. So don’t go into this story and think it’s a retelling, because it is not.
I adored the characters including Alice and Jessica. There are some dark moments, but me being a highly sensitive person, it wasn’t as triggering, but I will say there are some there. I loved the twists in the story and how Jessica really does come to terms with her new found role in Wonderland.
This is a first in a series. That’s my only complaint! Why must have the (im)patience for the next book and the wonder (lol) as to what is going to happen with Jessica? Can’t tell you the ending, Wonderland wants you to know it from beginning to end.
We follow Jessica whom eats a bit of cookie and winds up forgetting her past life. Once she is told that she has died and is now in Wonderland, Jessica struggles with the acclimation of this unique land that is only read in a book. She’s escorted by a White Rabbit named Horace (Not a genuine rabbit, but in this story, White Rabbits is Wonderland’s term for queen’s guards). She comes across Rion, the Caterpillar (but disguised as a man at the time) and he gives her a journal that belonged to a Hatter named Rorie (quite a few R names here.)
Anyway, she is taken to the Queen of Hearts, whom happens to be Alice. As a new comer to Wonderland, the new comers are to look through the Looking Glass to show where they are meant to be in Wonderland. You could be a Crafter or a part of the court, the Looking Glass shows you who you are. When Jessica looks through the glass, she is struck as are the other members of the palace that she is shown to be a Spade.
Spades declared ware on the palace before Alice took the throne. Wonderland is a magical place, but it can choose who it likes and doesn’t like, and who gets to leave and stay.
I don’t want to give away too much, so I’ll stop there for time being.
I’m going to be the first to say that Alice in Wonderland is not my favorite story. I don’t like the Disney cartoon (though I did as a child, what was I thinking?) I do love Tim Burton’s spin on it (IT’S NOT A REMAKE!) but the original story I just couldn’t get into it. The summary and the excerpt to this story was just too good to pass up. I had a feeling I would enjoy the story, I just didn’t realize how much I would.
I read this in days (would have been less if I didn’t have a full time job). It’s a unique spin on the story. This isn’t so much as a retelling as it is a what if or an addition to it if Alice became the queen of hearts. So don’t go into this story and think it’s a retelling, because it is not.
I adored the characters including Alice and Jessica. There are some dark moments, but me being a highly sensitive person, it wasn’t as triggering, but I will say there are some there. I loved the twists in the story and how Jessica really does come to terms with her new found role in Wonderland.
This is a first in a series. That’s my only complaint! Why must have the (im)patience for the next book and the wonder (lol) as to what is going to happen with Jessica? Can’t tell you the ending, Wonderland wants you to know it from beginning to end.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Apr 5, 2019
In a word...bland
There are many words that you can use to describe films by Tim Burton: Gothic, Bizarre, Dark, Interesting, SteamPunk, Unique, Visual.
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
The Great Ape-scape
Six years ago, I didn’t think I’d be telling you that a remake of the classic Planet of the Apes and its sequel would go on to be one of the finest double acts since The Two Ronnies, but that’s exactly what has happened.
Now, the final part of this incredible trilogy, War for the Planet of the Apes is out and ready to conclude an incredible half decade of cinema. But is it as good as its predecessors?
Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his band of loyal apes are forced into a deadly war with an army of humans led by a ruthless colonel (Woody Harrelson). After Caesar’s band of apes suffers unimaginable losses, he wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own quest of revenge. As the journey finally brings the two rivals face-to-face, Caesar and the colonel are pitted against each other in an epic battle that will determine the fate of both of their species.
I have to say, I was a little concerned the finished product would be as tongue twisting as its frankly ridiculous title (a problem that has blighted the entire series), but it ends up being a stunning and heart-warming finale to a franchise filled to the brim with memorable moments.
The motion capture used on Andy Serkis to create Caesar has to be seen to be believed. If you thought predecessor Dawn was good, you haven’t seen anything yet. His hair moves with subtle believability and his movements are so fluid, it’s easy to forget you’re watching a film and not a documentary.
But this incredible technology isn’t used solely on our main protagonist. Fan favourite orangutan Maurice returns and newcomer “Bad Ape” captured by Steve Zahn provides the flick with a much-needed eccentric, shining a little light in one of the bleakest feature films of the last half decade.
The human characters, naturally don’t fare so well. Woody Harrelson is his usual charismatic self but feels a little caricature like. His colonel just doesn’t feel particularly believable. Likewise, Amiah Miller’s turn as Nova, whom Maurice adopts as his daughter, seems to be merely used as a plot device, though she does partake in some of the sweeter moments.
As with its predecessors, War is a slow burner with the action interweaved into the plot rather than the other way around. In principle it works well, though the pacing towards the middle of this 140-minute behemoth is a little off.
Nevertheless, the action is filmed beautifully. In fact, the whole film is stunning. Beautiful wooded landscapes and open deserts are juxtaposed with the dark concentration camps used in the latter half. One sequence in particular, behind a gorgeously realised waterfall, is one of the best action scenes of the entire year.
Masquerading as a blockbuster, this is a film with a much deeper message about messing with nature. Brutal and emotionally testing, War for the Planet of the Apes is brave in its choices and all the better for it.
Three films in, it would be easy for director Matt Reeves to rest on his laurels and rely on the positive reaction to its predecessors, but thankfully he has climaxed on a high. It’s not perfect, and not an easy watch by any means, but for a threequel, you can’t really get much better.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/12/war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-review/
Now, the final part of this incredible trilogy, War for the Planet of the Apes is out and ready to conclude an incredible half decade of cinema. But is it as good as its predecessors?
Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his band of loyal apes are forced into a deadly war with an army of humans led by a ruthless colonel (Woody Harrelson). After Caesar’s band of apes suffers unimaginable losses, he wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own quest of revenge. As the journey finally brings the two rivals face-to-face, Caesar and the colonel are pitted against each other in an epic battle that will determine the fate of both of their species.
I have to say, I was a little concerned the finished product would be as tongue twisting as its frankly ridiculous title (a problem that has blighted the entire series), but it ends up being a stunning and heart-warming finale to a franchise filled to the brim with memorable moments.
The motion capture used on Andy Serkis to create Caesar has to be seen to be believed. If you thought predecessor Dawn was good, you haven’t seen anything yet. His hair moves with subtle believability and his movements are so fluid, it’s easy to forget you’re watching a film and not a documentary.
But this incredible technology isn’t used solely on our main protagonist. Fan favourite orangutan Maurice returns and newcomer “Bad Ape” captured by Steve Zahn provides the flick with a much-needed eccentric, shining a little light in one of the bleakest feature films of the last half decade.
The human characters, naturally don’t fare so well. Woody Harrelson is his usual charismatic self but feels a little caricature like. His colonel just doesn’t feel particularly believable. Likewise, Amiah Miller’s turn as Nova, whom Maurice adopts as his daughter, seems to be merely used as a plot device, though she does partake in some of the sweeter moments.
As with its predecessors, War is a slow burner with the action interweaved into the plot rather than the other way around. In principle it works well, though the pacing towards the middle of this 140-minute behemoth is a little off.
Nevertheless, the action is filmed beautifully. In fact, the whole film is stunning. Beautiful wooded landscapes and open deserts are juxtaposed with the dark concentration camps used in the latter half. One sequence in particular, behind a gorgeously realised waterfall, is one of the best action scenes of the entire year.
Masquerading as a blockbuster, this is a film with a much deeper message about messing with nature. Brutal and emotionally testing, War for the Planet of the Apes is brave in its choices and all the better for it.
Three films in, it would be easy for director Matt Reeves to rest on his laurels and rely on the positive reaction to its predecessors, but thankfully he has climaxed on a high. It’s not perfect, and not an easy watch by any means, but for a threequel, you can’t really get much better.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/12/war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare - Sabotage in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare has released their first of four planned DLC Packs; Sabotage for the Xbox One and PC systems after being previously released for the PS4 platform.
Like previous DLC packs in the series; the set contains four new maps and a new Zombie/Alien gameplay mode.
The first map is Noir: which is a futuristic Brooklyn setting teaming with open streets and an open courtyard which makes for some really close quarters combat. The map is great for those who like a run and gun approach but there are plenty of windows and areas for snipers and surprise attacks.
The next map is Renaissance which is a beautiful recreation of a pastoral Venetian setting. Players will battle in courtyards, a church, and along canals which create many choke points for enemy forces to mount attacks.
The third map is Neon which is a Tron like map set in a computer simulation. Players and vehicles as well as parts of the map de-rez when destroyed. The map has long lines and balconies which make for great points for snipers and those looking to mount and ambush, but I really liked mounting counter attacks in the night club which allows players a way to cover large parts of the map without having to travel the dangerous streets.
The final map is Dominion which is a futuristic remake of the classic Modern Warfare 2 map Afghan. Players will battle in a map with a downed vehicle at the center. The map has plenty of ridges, observation areas, and halls to allow players to battle one another in multiple game styles.
For me the highlight of the pack is the second installment of the Zombie mode called Rave in the Redwoods. The game continues the story of the four actors pulled into horror movies to battle legions of undead. The previous map was set in an 80s theme park and this time out we get a 90s themed camping horror film as the setting. Players get to use weapons such as a golf club, a spiked baseball bat, a machete, and other melee weapons before they pick up some heavier firepower to go with their grenades. Like in previous versions, players will have to buy access to various areas, new weapons, ammunition and such. There are also puzzles to solve to unlock new and special weapons and traps as well as to make the game progress to a conclusion point. Should players not solve the needed puzzles, then they will face wave after wave of enemies. Writer/Director Kevin Smith is on hand and can be a playable character and those looking for a change of pace can bring on a neon lightshow at various points. For fun players can also battle Bigfoot, a psycho killer, and other threats but trust me, there is plenty of challenge to go around. The Afterlife arcade returns so players who die are given a chance to play various games to make their way back into the game. With four player co-op, you will want to take advantage of the Zip Lines to get around.
While the new maps are fun, they really do not offer anything radically different but do extend the life of the game. For me, the Zombie mode is what makes this a must own as it continues to be the best overall Zombie experience in any of the COD games.
http://sknr.net/2017/03/15/call-duty-infinite-warfare-sabotage-dlc/
Like previous DLC packs in the series; the set contains four new maps and a new Zombie/Alien gameplay mode.
The first map is Noir: which is a futuristic Brooklyn setting teaming with open streets and an open courtyard which makes for some really close quarters combat. The map is great for those who like a run and gun approach but there are plenty of windows and areas for snipers and surprise attacks.
The next map is Renaissance which is a beautiful recreation of a pastoral Venetian setting. Players will battle in courtyards, a church, and along canals which create many choke points for enemy forces to mount attacks.
The third map is Neon which is a Tron like map set in a computer simulation. Players and vehicles as well as parts of the map de-rez when destroyed. The map has long lines and balconies which make for great points for snipers and those looking to mount and ambush, but I really liked mounting counter attacks in the night club which allows players a way to cover large parts of the map without having to travel the dangerous streets.
The final map is Dominion which is a futuristic remake of the classic Modern Warfare 2 map Afghan. Players will battle in a map with a downed vehicle at the center. The map has plenty of ridges, observation areas, and halls to allow players to battle one another in multiple game styles.
For me the highlight of the pack is the second installment of the Zombie mode called Rave in the Redwoods. The game continues the story of the four actors pulled into horror movies to battle legions of undead. The previous map was set in an 80s theme park and this time out we get a 90s themed camping horror film as the setting. Players get to use weapons such as a golf club, a spiked baseball bat, a machete, and other melee weapons before they pick up some heavier firepower to go with their grenades. Like in previous versions, players will have to buy access to various areas, new weapons, ammunition and such. There are also puzzles to solve to unlock new and special weapons and traps as well as to make the game progress to a conclusion point. Should players not solve the needed puzzles, then they will face wave after wave of enemies. Writer/Director Kevin Smith is on hand and can be a playable character and those looking for a change of pace can bring on a neon lightshow at various points. For fun players can also battle Bigfoot, a psycho killer, and other threats but trust me, there is plenty of challenge to go around. The Afterlife arcade returns so players who die are given a chance to play various games to make their way back into the game. With four player co-op, you will want to take advantage of the Zip Lines to get around.
While the new maps are fun, they really do not offer anything radically different but do extend the life of the game. For me, the Zombie mode is what makes this a must own as it continues to be the best overall Zombie experience in any of the COD games.
http://sknr.net/2017/03/15/call-duty-infinite-warfare-sabotage-dlc/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams starts by Mayor Buckman (Mosely) explaining why they are out for vengeances where they town of Pleasant Valley lost 2001 residents in the 1800s. When the deal with a local Sheriff is getting pushed to the limits Buckman makes sure his maniacs are safe. This leads to them going on tour to get the people from the north. We then meet High society sister Rome (Johnson) and Tina (Hope) part of Road Rascal reality show going to the south. After their camper gets run off the crashes they get stuck in the middle of nowhere where they bump into the Pleasant Valley community.
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Last House on the Left (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1972, horror icon Wes Craven made a name for himself by writing and directing a film called “The Last House on the Left.” The film was very controversial and helped launch a new genre of terror and suspense films that pushed the limits of the times. The film was notorious for its content which included rape, torture, humiliation, and violence and contains to this day some of the most disturbing images ever captured on film. In this age of remakes, prequels, and sequels, Wes Craven has stepped aside to produce a new version of his classic and this remake is sure to be as controversial and disturbing as the original was.
The film centers around 17 year old Mari Collingwood (Sara Paxton), who is taking time off from her competitive swimming and school to spend the summer with her parents Emma and John (Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn), at their remote cabin in the woods. The family is coming to grips with the loss of their son, and Mari is anxious to spend some time with her friend Paige (Martha MacIssac), whom she has not seen in a while.
Despite concerns from her mother, Mari is given the keys to the car by her father and travels into town to see Paige. The two girls meet a boy named Justin (Spencer Treat Clark), and proceed to go back to his room to party. The three of them are having a great time until Justin’s father Krug (Garrett Dillahunt), as well as his uncle and father’s girlfriend return unexpectedly. Krug and the group are wanted convicts after a bloody escape that has left two officers dead and Krug and his family the subject of an intense manhunt. The presence of Paige and Mari is an unwanted complication and the two girls are kidnapped and taken deep into the woods. After a failed escape attempt, the unstable group set upon the girls in a series of violent physical and psychological torture and acts before brutally finishing with them and leaving them for dead.
When an unexpected storm arrives, the fugitives take refuge at the only house in the area which happens to be Mari’s home. The Collingwood’s take the stranded group in and render medical assistance thanks to John’s background as a doctor. Unaware of the evil they have let into their home, the Collingwood’s life is turned upside down when their nearly dead daughter appears on their doorstep and forces the family to do whatever it takes to survive.
What follows is a dark, violent, and intense finale that goes to extreme measures to underscore the brutality and desperation the family has been driven to in order to survive. This may lead to some using the popular phrase “torture porn” to describe the film, but that would imply a film that existed in no other context but to titillate an audience with pain and suffering. The film is thin on plot and character development, making it simply a film about revenge and the depths people will go to in order to survive and protect their loved ones. The film is a bit slow at parts but few people will forget some of the more intense moments of the film include the finale. As with “The Hills Have Eyes”, Craven created settings where ideal families were driven to extreme measures when confronted with life outside of the safe suburbs in which they dwelled. The film will shock and dismay some, but few will forget the disturbing images anytime soon.
The film centers around 17 year old Mari Collingwood (Sara Paxton), who is taking time off from her competitive swimming and school to spend the summer with her parents Emma and John (Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn), at their remote cabin in the woods. The family is coming to grips with the loss of their son, and Mari is anxious to spend some time with her friend Paige (Martha MacIssac), whom she has not seen in a while.
Despite concerns from her mother, Mari is given the keys to the car by her father and travels into town to see Paige. The two girls meet a boy named Justin (Spencer Treat Clark), and proceed to go back to his room to party. The three of them are having a great time until Justin’s father Krug (Garrett Dillahunt), as well as his uncle and father’s girlfriend return unexpectedly. Krug and the group are wanted convicts after a bloody escape that has left two officers dead and Krug and his family the subject of an intense manhunt. The presence of Paige and Mari is an unwanted complication and the two girls are kidnapped and taken deep into the woods. After a failed escape attempt, the unstable group set upon the girls in a series of violent physical and psychological torture and acts before brutally finishing with them and leaving them for dead.
When an unexpected storm arrives, the fugitives take refuge at the only house in the area which happens to be Mari’s home. The Collingwood’s take the stranded group in and render medical assistance thanks to John’s background as a doctor. Unaware of the evil they have let into their home, the Collingwood’s life is turned upside down when their nearly dead daughter appears on their doorstep and forces the family to do whatever it takes to survive.
What follows is a dark, violent, and intense finale that goes to extreme measures to underscore the brutality and desperation the family has been driven to in order to survive. This may lead to some using the popular phrase “torture porn” to describe the film, but that would imply a film that existed in no other context but to titillate an audience with pain and suffering. The film is thin on plot and character development, making it simply a film about revenge and the depths people will go to in order to survive and protect their loved ones. The film is a bit slow at parts but few people will forget some of the more intense moments of the film include the finale. As with “The Hills Have Eyes”, Craven created settings where ideal families were driven to extreme measures when confronted with life outside of the safe suburbs in which they dwelled. The film will shock and dismay some, but few will forget the disturbing images anytime soon.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hancock (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Throughout the annals of cinema, the big screen has been home to some of the most larger-than-life heroes ever to spring from the pages of comic books. Recent adaptations of Spider-Man, Batman, and Superman, all went on to box office gold and with several more character adaptations in the works, there seems to be no end to the public’s desire to see tales based on costumed heroes with amazing powers.
In one of the more original twists on the hero genre, Will Smith stars as Hancock, a surly lush, who is more concerned about his next drink than he is about saving the day. Despite being blessed with amazing strength, invulnerability, and the ability to fly, Hancock is looked upon with disdain by most of the people of Los Angeles because his attitude is second only to the amazing amount of damage he causes in bringing local hoodlums to justice.
Shortly after causing nine million dollars in damage after his latest crime fighting effort, the mayor of L.A. places a warrant out for Hancock, having decided it was time for Hancock to be held accountable for the mayhem he has caused. At the same time, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is returning home after failing in his pitch to get a major pharmaceutical company to donate their new wonder drug in an effort to make the world better.
When danger arises during a traffic jam, Ray is saved by Hancock in the nick of time and is grateful for the efforts of the hero. Unfortunately a group of bystanders are convinced that Hancock could have saved Ray without making wreaking such havoc. In the midst of some heated verbal exchanges, Ray steps up for Hancock and expresses his gratitude to the hero and invites him home for dinner with his son and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). Undaunted by the gruff mannerisms of Hancock, Ray eventually convinces Hancock to let Ray represent him and sets out on a plan to remake Hancock’s image more positive and civic-friendly.
While this scenario presents several comedic moments, the film eventually changes tact, and becomes much darker in tone, and mired in a subplot of fate and mysticism that honestly seems greatly out-of-place with the tone established in the first three quarters of the film.
While it is notable that the filmmakers decided to try something different, the final result is a muddled effort that greatly undermines the laughs and momentum that were established earlier in the film. Smith does a great job but when he is not unleashing his sardonic quips, he seems to be disinterested and going through the motion for much of the last half of the film. Bateman does the best he can with a stock part and Theron seems woefully underused in a role that, while promising, really is not worthy of an actress of her skills.
Director Peter Berg does a solid job with the action and FX of the film, and clearly shows he has a knack for humor. Unfortunately the script by “X-Files” alum Vince Gilligan and Vince Ngo fails to live up to the potential of the premise and in the end leaves “Hancock” grounded.
In one of the more original twists on the hero genre, Will Smith stars as Hancock, a surly lush, who is more concerned about his next drink than he is about saving the day. Despite being blessed with amazing strength, invulnerability, and the ability to fly, Hancock is looked upon with disdain by most of the people of Los Angeles because his attitude is second only to the amazing amount of damage he causes in bringing local hoodlums to justice.
Shortly after causing nine million dollars in damage after his latest crime fighting effort, the mayor of L.A. places a warrant out for Hancock, having decided it was time for Hancock to be held accountable for the mayhem he has caused. At the same time, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is returning home after failing in his pitch to get a major pharmaceutical company to donate their new wonder drug in an effort to make the world better.
When danger arises during a traffic jam, Ray is saved by Hancock in the nick of time and is grateful for the efforts of the hero. Unfortunately a group of bystanders are convinced that Hancock could have saved Ray without making wreaking such havoc. In the midst of some heated verbal exchanges, Ray steps up for Hancock and expresses his gratitude to the hero and invites him home for dinner with his son and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). Undaunted by the gruff mannerisms of Hancock, Ray eventually convinces Hancock to let Ray represent him and sets out on a plan to remake Hancock’s image more positive and civic-friendly.
While this scenario presents several comedic moments, the film eventually changes tact, and becomes much darker in tone, and mired in a subplot of fate and mysticism that honestly seems greatly out-of-place with the tone established in the first three quarters of the film.
While it is notable that the filmmakers decided to try something different, the final result is a muddled effort that greatly undermines the laughs and momentum that were established earlier in the film. Smith does a great job but when he is not unleashing his sardonic quips, he seems to be disinterested and going through the motion for much of the last half of the film. Bateman does the best he can with a stock part and Theron seems woefully underused in a role that, while promising, really is not worthy of an actress of her skills.
Director Peter Berg does a solid job with the action and FX of the film, and clearly shows he has a knack for humor. Unfortunately the script by “X-Files” alum Vince Gilligan and Vince Ngo fails to live up to the potential of the premise and in the end leaves “Hancock” grounded.