Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Superman (1978) in Movies
Dec 22, 2018
Gets better every time I watch!
After purchasing the new 4K edition of the original Donner classic, I had to rush right home and watch it immediately!
Having seen this film way too many times, it is impossible for me to be objective I have discovered. I can look past the film's faults and just enjoy the countless classic scenes which are still imitated in superhero films of today.
The cast is what makes the films special including Christopher Reeeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman and even Marlon Brando.
It is too bad history never got to see a Superman II directed by Richard Donner. Who knows what that would've been. I'm sure it would have been amazing.
If you have ever seen the "made for TV" version, there is a LOT of additional footage there a lot of which is really good including the sequence near the end where Superman has to make his way underground to find Luthor's lair.
Reflecting on Superman now really shows me I remember it being epic as a kid and still leaves me in wonder as an adult. Very films can still do that.
And LOVE those opening credits... (bring back opening credits)
Having seen this film way too many times, it is impossible for me to be objective I have discovered. I can look past the film's faults and just enjoy the countless classic scenes which are still imitated in superhero films of today.
The cast is what makes the films special including Christopher Reeeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman and even Marlon Brando.
It is too bad history never got to see a Superman II directed by Richard Donner. Who knows what that would've been. I'm sure it would have been amazing.
If you have ever seen the "made for TV" version, there is a LOT of additional footage there a lot of which is really good including the sequence near the end where Superman has to make his way underground to find Luthor's lair.
Reflecting on Superman now really shows me I remember it being epic as a kid and still leaves me in wonder as an adult. Very films can still do that.
And LOVE those opening credits... (bring back opening credits)
Isabel Smith (34 KP) rated The Wife Between Us in Books
Jun 26, 2018
I CANNOT WAIT FOR THE MOVIE!!!!
Dear Reader,
They think I’m crazy, that I’m unstable and unreliable. I promise I’m not. I have been paranoid, yes. I have put on an act before, for sure. I have been involved in more than one scandal, it’s true. But I am not crazy, regardless of what my ex-husband would have you believe. He is an expert manipulator, a master of deceit, a specialist in the art of charisma. Read my story and you’ll see. There have been plenty of us, the women in Richard’s life. It all starts out the same each time; he’ll sweep you off your feet and shower you with love and lavish gifts. Eventually, though, you will do something wrong…something he doesn’t like. Then the mind games begin. The surveillance emerges. The attacks come out of nowhere. Love gives way to entrapment as he pulls the noose tighter and tighter. Just as it all starts the same, it always ends the same too. But I got away. Now, I need to make sure he can never hurt anyone again. So, read my story and stay away. Stay away from men like Richard.
Take extra care,
Vanessa Thompson
P.S. Don’t let this new psychological thriller slip you by. Read it now, before the buzz of its upcoming movie adaptation hits hard and makes the waitlist a mile long. It’s got so many layers that you’ll get to peel back as you rush through the storyline. Some will surprise you by how subtle they are and others will slap you in the face and make you question what you just read.
They think I’m crazy, that I’m unstable and unreliable. I promise I’m not. I have been paranoid, yes. I have put on an act before, for sure. I have been involved in more than one scandal, it’s true. But I am not crazy, regardless of what my ex-husband would have you believe. He is an expert manipulator, a master of deceit, a specialist in the art of charisma. Read my story and you’ll see. There have been plenty of us, the women in Richard’s life. It all starts out the same each time; he’ll sweep you off your feet and shower you with love and lavish gifts. Eventually, though, you will do something wrong…something he doesn’t like. Then the mind games begin. The surveillance emerges. The attacks come out of nowhere. Love gives way to entrapment as he pulls the noose tighter and tighter. Just as it all starts the same, it always ends the same too. But I got away. Now, I need to make sure he can never hurt anyone again. So, read my story and stay away. Stay away from men like Richard.
Take extra care,
Vanessa Thompson
P.S. Don’t let this new psychological thriller slip you by. Read it now, before the buzz of its upcoming movie adaptation hits hard and makes the waitlist a mile long. It’s got so many layers that you’ll get to peel back as you rush through the storyline. Some will surprise you by how subtle they are and others will slap you in the face and make you question what you just read.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Verdict: Goosebumps With Pure Horror
Story: Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark starts with the backdrop of the Richard Nixon election, where high school students Stella (Colletti), Auggie (Rush) and Chuck (Zajur) look to get revenge on the school bully, which sees them stumble into stranger’s Ramon (Garza) car on Halloween which sees them head to a haunted house that has the story about the daughter of the family Sarah Bellows, writing scary stories for the local kids that soon went missing.
When Stella finds the story book she starts to investigate the stories, only to see the stories writing themselves with the locals starting to go missing, including her friends, Stella must investigate the myth about Sarah to stop the people she loves going missing.
Thoughts on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
Characters – Stella is an outsider at her school, she has always struggled with the people talking about her mother that disappeared, she is known for writing stories and enjoys a horror film, she wants to investigate the haunted house and is fascinated by what she finds, even though she must do anything to protect her friends once she learns the evil involved. Most of this film Stella feels like a young Velma from Scooby Doo too, which can be hard to shake without realizing. Ramon Morales is a stranger in town, the police don’t take to him too kindly, but Stella sees him as a nice guy, it is slightly confusing trying to figure out how old he is and why he is hanging out with the high schoolers, but he does have a reason to be on the run. Auggie and Chuck are the two banter filled friends of Stella that do make the smart decisions when it comes to dealing with horror moments. Roy Nicholls is the father of Stella that has been struggling with his wife’s disappearance, which has seen him become distant from Stella too.
Performances – Zoe Margaret Colletti is great in the leading role, we see her give us a vulnerable, but strong character that needs to break out of her shell. Michael Garza is strong through the film, playing the mysterious stranger, needing to keep a lot of his secrets close to his chest. Gabriel Rush and Austin Zajur have great chemistry and the friends, while Dean Norris doesn’t do anything wrong, but does feel wasted at times.
Story – The story here follows a group of teenagers that find a book that tells scary stories that come true with horrifying outcomes and they must figure out how to break the curse placed upon them. This does feel like a much darker version of a Goosebumps set of stories, with each horror figure being terrifying in their own right, which will lead to an event that you don’t see coming. We do have the investigation side of the film which does answer the questions about what is going on and why, which as always is entertaining to watch in a horror and with everything adding up nicely we will be left with a story that flows smoothly throughout.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from the different creations of horror, for the most part the trailer does show us each of the creations involved in the film, the mystery plays into why the horror events are happening and just what Sarah is making this happen.
Settings – The film is set in a small town, where everybody knows everyone, which does play into the idea that the stories around the town can destroy reputations and feelings.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are used to make the horror creatures seem more terrifying where they look like practical effects too, which is a delight to see.
Scene of the Movie – Chuck’s visit.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The trailer gives away all of the horror figures.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun horror film that is filled with scary figures that will fill you with dread as they are original creations and will surprise with what happens to the characters.
Overall: Fun Dark Horror.
Story: Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark starts with the backdrop of the Richard Nixon election, where high school students Stella (Colletti), Auggie (Rush) and Chuck (Zajur) look to get revenge on the school bully, which sees them stumble into stranger’s Ramon (Garza) car on Halloween which sees them head to a haunted house that has the story about the daughter of the family Sarah Bellows, writing scary stories for the local kids that soon went missing.
When Stella finds the story book she starts to investigate the stories, only to see the stories writing themselves with the locals starting to go missing, including her friends, Stella must investigate the myth about Sarah to stop the people she loves going missing.
Thoughts on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
Characters – Stella is an outsider at her school, she has always struggled with the people talking about her mother that disappeared, she is known for writing stories and enjoys a horror film, she wants to investigate the haunted house and is fascinated by what she finds, even though she must do anything to protect her friends once she learns the evil involved. Most of this film Stella feels like a young Velma from Scooby Doo too, which can be hard to shake without realizing. Ramon Morales is a stranger in town, the police don’t take to him too kindly, but Stella sees him as a nice guy, it is slightly confusing trying to figure out how old he is and why he is hanging out with the high schoolers, but he does have a reason to be on the run. Auggie and Chuck are the two banter filled friends of Stella that do make the smart decisions when it comes to dealing with horror moments. Roy Nicholls is the father of Stella that has been struggling with his wife’s disappearance, which has seen him become distant from Stella too.
Performances – Zoe Margaret Colletti is great in the leading role, we see her give us a vulnerable, but strong character that needs to break out of her shell. Michael Garza is strong through the film, playing the mysterious stranger, needing to keep a lot of his secrets close to his chest. Gabriel Rush and Austin Zajur have great chemistry and the friends, while Dean Norris doesn’t do anything wrong, but does feel wasted at times.
Story – The story here follows a group of teenagers that find a book that tells scary stories that come true with horrifying outcomes and they must figure out how to break the curse placed upon them. This does feel like a much darker version of a Goosebumps set of stories, with each horror figure being terrifying in their own right, which will lead to an event that you don’t see coming. We do have the investigation side of the film which does answer the questions about what is going on and why, which as always is entertaining to watch in a horror and with everything adding up nicely we will be left with a story that flows smoothly throughout.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from the different creations of horror, for the most part the trailer does show us each of the creations involved in the film, the mystery plays into why the horror events are happening and just what Sarah is making this happen.
Settings – The film is set in a small town, where everybody knows everyone, which does play into the idea that the stories around the town can destroy reputations and feelings.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are used to make the horror creatures seem more terrifying where they look like practical effects too, which is a delight to see.
Scene of the Movie – Chuck’s visit.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The trailer gives away all of the horror figures.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun horror film that is filled with scary figures that will fill you with dread as they are original creations and will surprise with what happens to the characters.
Overall: Fun Dark Horror.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Sweet Tooth in TV
Jun 23, 2021
Story/Plot (2 more)
Actors/acting
Music/Soundtrack
For some the rating being TV-14 (1 more)
Some of the CGI
A Lot of Heart and A Great Story, That Lives Up To The Hype
https://youtu.be/3vw5Un4qmU8
Sweet Tooth is an awesome show. I was pretty excited for this show when I saw the trailer and what it was going to be about. That's because shows and cartoons that have to do with anthropomorphic animal people have a special place in my heart. I think it's because of my love of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up and also because of all the Disney cartoons with talking animals I watched as a kid. Anyways, I really dug this show and thought that it was excellent. I though the casting was pretty spot on for what they were trying to go with and there was some really good acting in this series. I for one, couldn't really see Will Forte as a father before this movie, but he did such a great job as Pubba/Richard Fox Gus's father. I also liked Adeel Akhtar who played Dr. Singh. His performance was really good and I liked his character more than I thought I would. He brought a lot of emotion to his character and his facial expressions really said a lot without having to say it in words. The cinematography was excellent, and there were a lot of this epic shots. Some of the ones I remember the most are these ones from the beginning of episodes showing the scenery like the forest and mountains and others of the cities and just ones where they were really zoomed out showing how big the world is. The plot for me was very interesting because of the whole mystery to it and it being two-fold with the mystery of the virus and then the one of the hybrids. There was the whole speculation on whether the two were related or not and what they had to do with each other if anything. I also liked how even though Gus is the main character, the plot turned into three main storylines following the characters of Gus, Dr. Singh and then Aimee Eden/Dania Ramirez. Aimee Eden is a lady who takes in abandoned hybrids to her sanctuary/orphanage that she creates. I love Dania Ramirez as an actress and you've probably seen her in the shows and movies she's been in like one of my all time favorites, the show Heroes and movies like X-Men: Last Stand, Premium Rush and American Reunion. The soundtrack for the show was really good and very fitting in setting the mood and there were a couple of good songs that stuck out for me like the songs "Dirty Paws" by Of Monsters and Men and "Dancing in the Moonlight" by King Harvest. It seems like the show has a few different themes and they are pretty powerful and universal. One of them is how society shows prejudice, hatred, and fear to those who are different. The series has a generally good atmosphere and mood but I like how the vibe changes in key moments and they do a good job of setting tension in certain spots like when the man approaches the fence near Gus' home in the first episode. The special effects and CGI were decent but nothing spectacular in my opinion from what I remember. There were a couple that could have been better but nothing terribly horrible. The dialogue seemed pretty natural and nothing that stuck out as unusual or something that seemed better on paper or unnatural being said for most of the characters. It was rated TV-14 so for a show that had some mature themes it kind of shies away from the more extreme actions of the plot which I know some people will criticize but I thought it had enough things going on action wise and didn't need to be overly violent or graphic. That being said, I've never read the comic and don't know how it compares to the source material. I thought the editing was rather good and the scenes transitioned well. I especially liked the narration that comes out in the episodes which took me until the end of the season to find out it was actually the voice of Josh Brolin. The pacing was good as well and I liked the way this show places the flashbacks and scenes of the past while still going forward plot wise in the story. I have to say that my favorite character so far is probably the girl called Bear. She's really interesting and has a really cool introduction to the show when she appears. Well that's going to do it for this review, Sweet Tooth is a an awesome show and I give it a 9/10 and it definitely gets my "Must See Seal of Approval". It's on Netflix, so if you haven't seen it yet, you need to give this show a watch.
If you want to read the spoiler review section for my review, check it out on my website by clicking on the link below.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/sweet-tooth-tv-series-review-9-10-a-lot-of-heart-and-a-great-story-that-lives-up-to-the-hype
Sweet Tooth is an awesome show. I was pretty excited for this show when I saw the trailer and what it was going to be about. That's because shows and cartoons that have to do with anthropomorphic animal people have a special place in my heart. I think it's because of my love of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up and also because of all the Disney cartoons with talking animals I watched as a kid. Anyways, I really dug this show and thought that it was excellent. I though the casting was pretty spot on for what they were trying to go with and there was some really good acting in this series. I for one, couldn't really see Will Forte as a father before this movie, but he did such a great job as Pubba/Richard Fox Gus's father. I also liked Adeel Akhtar who played Dr. Singh. His performance was really good and I liked his character more than I thought I would. He brought a lot of emotion to his character and his facial expressions really said a lot without having to say it in words. The cinematography was excellent, and there were a lot of this epic shots. Some of the ones I remember the most are these ones from the beginning of episodes showing the scenery like the forest and mountains and others of the cities and just ones where they were really zoomed out showing how big the world is. The plot for me was very interesting because of the whole mystery to it and it being two-fold with the mystery of the virus and then the one of the hybrids. There was the whole speculation on whether the two were related or not and what they had to do with each other if anything. I also liked how even though Gus is the main character, the plot turned into three main storylines following the characters of Gus, Dr. Singh and then Aimee Eden/Dania Ramirez. Aimee Eden is a lady who takes in abandoned hybrids to her sanctuary/orphanage that she creates. I love Dania Ramirez as an actress and you've probably seen her in the shows and movies she's been in like one of my all time favorites, the show Heroes and movies like X-Men: Last Stand, Premium Rush and American Reunion. The soundtrack for the show was really good and very fitting in setting the mood and there were a couple of good songs that stuck out for me like the songs "Dirty Paws" by Of Monsters and Men and "Dancing in the Moonlight" by King Harvest. It seems like the show has a few different themes and they are pretty powerful and universal. One of them is how society shows prejudice, hatred, and fear to those who are different. The series has a generally good atmosphere and mood but I like how the vibe changes in key moments and they do a good job of setting tension in certain spots like when the man approaches the fence near Gus' home in the first episode. The special effects and CGI were decent but nothing spectacular in my opinion from what I remember. There were a couple that could have been better but nothing terribly horrible. The dialogue seemed pretty natural and nothing that stuck out as unusual or something that seemed better on paper or unnatural being said for most of the characters. It was rated TV-14 so for a show that had some mature themes it kind of shies away from the more extreme actions of the plot which I know some people will criticize but I thought it had enough things going on action wise and didn't need to be overly violent or graphic. That being said, I've never read the comic and don't know how it compares to the source material. I thought the editing was rather good and the scenes transitioned well. I especially liked the narration that comes out in the episodes which took me until the end of the season to find out it was actually the voice of Josh Brolin. The pacing was good as well and I liked the way this show places the flashbacks and scenes of the past while still going forward plot wise in the story. I have to say that my favorite character so far is probably the girl called Bear. She's really interesting and has a really cool introduction to the show when she appears. Well that's going to do it for this review, Sweet Tooth is a an awesome show and I give it a 9/10 and it definitely gets my "Must See Seal of Approval". It's on Netflix, so if you haven't seen it yet, you need to give this show a watch.
If you want to read the spoiler review section for my review, check it out on my website by clicking on the link below.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/sweet-tooth-tv-series-review-9-10-a-lot-of-heart-and-a-great-story-that-lives-up-to-the-hype
