Search
Search results
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Purge (2013) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
I wanted a 'Killer in masks/home invasion' and that's what I got but there is a lot going on it 'The Purge' :
1) We have the purge itself, a new political party has come in and started titular Purge, one night a year where any crime is legal (although the emphasis is on killing and, via subtext, rape). There are a few exceptions stated at the start of the film and, although it's not directly stated, it seems that minors are exempt, in that they can be targets but not actually participate in the killing.
2)The 'Boyfriend' subplot. This could have led to the main plot but seems to be there just to keep us off track at the beginning.
3) The bloody stranger - ok he's needed as he's the main McGuffin
4) The Freaks, Yes the film needs it's antagonists and it's sometimes good to throw in a red herring but we have; The Freaks, Henry (the boy friend), The Bloody stranger who is suspected as being dangerous when he first arrives, even Janes Sandin looks like he could be the antagonist when he is going to throw the stranger out of the house, then we have...
5) The neighbours - even from the start of the film there is something off about them.
6) Add all of this together with a lot of politics and you have a very layered film.
The first half of the film is mainly set up, setting up the idea of the purge and introducing the characters, there are a few shots of violence in the beginning but the film starts off slow. Then it explodes in violence.
Although the concept is the same, The Purge is a different beast to something like 'The Strangers', both films spend time building up to the the action but, when the action starts, the Purge is much faster paced, mainly because there are more 'hunters' and they have guns.
The Purge is also a very political film but it doesn't go down the 'rich vs poor' root that a lot of films do, this is mentioned a bit but only to back up the thinking behind some of those who partake in the event. The film shows two sides of the Purge and mentions two more, you have those that want to take part in the event and those (like the main family) who don't, the Sandin's just want to get through the night where as the 'Freaks' happily take part in it. It's also mentioned that there are those who can not protect themselves (the poor) and those that object.
After watching it I am left with two questions:
1) what happened to Henrys body? We last saw it in Zoey's room, no one mentioned moving it and it couldn't have been taken out of the house but it was never seen when the Freaks were going room to room, they even went into the room where it should have been.
2) were the cookies poisoned? The neighbour said they saw the shutters come down (pulled off) and decided to take the opportunity to kill the Sandins but the hatred was already there so could the cookies have been another way to kill them off. It's true that they would have had to have been cooked before the purge officially started but, going by when they given, they would not have been eaten until either a few minuets before the start or after it had started and I doubt that anyone official would pay too much attention to the bodies after the purge. There would be too many even if they wanted too.
1) We have the purge itself, a new political party has come in and started titular Purge, one night a year where any crime is legal (although the emphasis is on killing and, via subtext, rape). There are a few exceptions stated at the start of the film and, although it's not directly stated, it seems that minors are exempt, in that they can be targets but not actually participate in the killing.
2)The 'Boyfriend' subplot. This could have led to the main plot but seems to be there just to keep us off track at the beginning.
3) The bloody stranger - ok he's needed as he's the main McGuffin
4) The Freaks, Yes the film needs it's antagonists and it's sometimes good to throw in a red herring but we have; The Freaks, Henry (the boy friend), The Bloody stranger who is suspected as being dangerous when he first arrives, even Janes Sandin looks like he could be the antagonist when he is going to throw the stranger out of the house, then we have...
5) The neighbours - even from the start of the film there is something off about them.
6) Add all of this together with a lot of politics and you have a very layered film.
The first half of the film is mainly set up, setting up the idea of the purge and introducing the characters, there are a few shots of violence in the beginning but the film starts off slow. Then it explodes in violence.
Although the concept is the same, The Purge is a different beast to something like 'The Strangers', both films spend time building up to the the action but, when the action starts, the Purge is much faster paced, mainly because there are more 'hunters' and they have guns.
The Purge is also a very political film but it doesn't go down the 'rich vs poor' root that a lot of films do, this is mentioned a bit but only to back up the thinking behind some of those who partake in the event. The film shows two sides of the Purge and mentions two more, you have those that want to take part in the event and those (like the main family) who don't, the Sandin's just want to get through the night where as the 'Freaks' happily take part in it. It's also mentioned that there are those who can not protect themselves (the poor) and those that object.
After watching it I am left with two questions:
1) what happened to Henrys body? We last saw it in Zoey's room, no one mentioned moving it and it couldn't have been taken out of the house but it was never seen when the Freaks were going room to room, they even went into the room where it should have been.
2) were the cookies poisoned? The neighbour said they saw the shutters come down (pulled off) and decided to take the opportunity to kill the Sandins but the hatred was already there so could the cookies have been another way to kill them off. It's true that they would have had to have been cooked before the purge officially started but, going by when they given, they would not have been eaten until either a few minuets before the start or after it had started and I doubt that anyone official would pay too much attention to the bodies after the purge. There would be too many even if they wanted too.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Oct 1, 2019
Another DC Win
When a foster kid runs into an ancient wizard, he suddenly finds that he can turn himself into a superhero by uttering a simple word: Shazam! DC has run into a fair share of buzz saws when it comes to making quality movies, but chalk one up on the positive side with this one.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 7
I loved all the characters for the most part. Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is a cool kid with attitude merely trying to find his place in the world. You don’t feel sorry for him; even though he is definitely mistreated, he’s also a bit of a butthead as most kids that age are. He’s met in his new foster home by a fun group of kids that will give you a number of reasons to laugh. His roommate Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) had me cracking up throughout. He wasn’t just there for comic relief though as I appreciated the more sensitive moments. Big shout-out to Zachary Levi as well playing the role of the superhero Shazam. It’s fun watching Shazam learn his powers just like a kid would because, well, he’s a kid.
Yes, these characters are great. You know who wasn’t great? Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong). Felt way too over-the-top for me. I didn’t really understand his motivation either or, rather, I understood but just didn’t think it was enough for him to go as bonkers as he did. He honestly almost ruined the movie for me singlehandedly but I got ahold of myself and remembered I was having a good time.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
While I was mostly impressed with the quality of the visuals, I felt like they took a shortcut in a handful of spots, particularly with the opposition. The villain and his henchmen didn’t quite look as up to par as Shazam. The man of the hour, however, was on point. Shift changes were smooth and fluid. I enjoyed watching him steadily come into his own as a superhero as the camera captured each new ability one-by-one.
Conflict: 8
The action was steady but uneven. You’re watching Shazam slowly develop his powers and it’s great at times, but it’s not without a bit of lag. Things definitely heat up more towards the back half of the movie than in the beginning. When the action does go down, the battles that unfold are solid and entertaining.
Entertainment Value: 8
While the action isn’t always at its strongest, the movie makes up for it with some solid comedic moments. We go to movies to have a good time and, I gotta say, I had a blast watching Shazam! With a heartfelt story that gives you a reason to root for the protagonist and delightful side characters, entertaining is beyond a fair word for this movie.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
A few issues here I can’t overlook. My biggest problem were the coincidental occurrences that happened for the sake of advancing the story. For this movie to be mostly great, I think it cheated its way through some parts, parts which definitely could have been handled better. I am never a fan of that as it’s just lazy. Definitely could have been better.
Resolution: 10
Couldn’t have asked for a better ending. If the entirety of the movie had been more like this, we might have a classic on our hands. It ties up everything in a great bow and gives you yet another reason to love the movie.
Overall: 84
Because of my past experience with DC, I went in with low expectations. I was pleasantly surprised and happy with how much I enjoyed this movie. If DC can continue to make quality movies like Shazam!, they may be due for a comeback!
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 7
I loved all the characters for the most part. Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is a cool kid with attitude merely trying to find his place in the world. You don’t feel sorry for him; even though he is definitely mistreated, he’s also a bit of a butthead as most kids that age are. He’s met in his new foster home by a fun group of kids that will give you a number of reasons to laugh. His roommate Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) had me cracking up throughout. He wasn’t just there for comic relief though as I appreciated the more sensitive moments. Big shout-out to Zachary Levi as well playing the role of the superhero Shazam. It’s fun watching Shazam learn his powers just like a kid would because, well, he’s a kid.
Yes, these characters are great. You know who wasn’t great? Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong). Felt way too over-the-top for me. I didn’t really understand his motivation either or, rather, I understood but just didn’t think it was enough for him to go as bonkers as he did. He honestly almost ruined the movie for me singlehandedly but I got ahold of myself and remembered I was having a good time.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
While I was mostly impressed with the quality of the visuals, I felt like they took a shortcut in a handful of spots, particularly with the opposition. The villain and his henchmen didn’t quite look as up to par as Shazam. The man of the hour, however, was on point. Shift changes were smooth and fluid. I enjoyed watching him steadily come into his own as a superhero as the camera captured each new ability one-by-one.
Conflict: 8
The action was steady but uneven. You’re watching Shazam slowly develop his powers and it’s great at times, but it’s not without a bit of lag. Things definitely heat up more towards the back half of the movie than in the beginning. When the action does go down, the battles that unfold are solid and entertaining.
Entertainment Value: 8
While the action isn’t always at its strongest, the movie makes up for it with some solid comedic moments. We go to movies to have a good time and, I gotta say, I had a blast watching Shazam! With a heartfelt story that gives you a reason to root for the protagonist and delightful side characters, entertaining is beyond a fair word for this movie.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
A few issues here I can’t overlook. My biggest problem were the coincidental occurrences that happened for the sake of advancing the story. For this movie to be mostly great, I think it cheated its way through some parts, parts which definitely could have been handled better. I am never a fan of that as it’s just lazy. Definitely could have been better.
Resolution: 10
Couldn’t have asked for a better ending. If the entirety of the movie had been more like this, we might have a classic on our hands. It ties up everything in a great bow and gives you yet another reason to love the movie.
Overall: 84
Because of my past experience with DC, I went in with low expectations. I was pleasantly surprised and happy with how much I enjoyed this movie. If DC can continue to make quality movies like Shazam!, they may be due for a comeback!
Midiflow Keyboard (Audiobus)
Music and Entertainment
App
This keyboard for Audiobus 3 allows you to perform music with multiple synth apps at the same time....
TB MIDI Stuff
Music and Utilities
App
TB MIDI Stuff is a highly intuitive full-featured modular MIDI & OSC control surface for iPad and...
Guitar Jam Tracks - Scale Trainer & Practice Buddy
Music and Education
App
Learn guitar scales FAST with the #1 practice buddy and scale trainer on the App Store, Guitar Jam...
SessionBand Jazz - Volume 1
Music and Entertainment
App
All SessionBand apps now half price for a limited time only! Jamie Cullum: "An extraordinarily...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Army of Thieves (2021) in Movies
Nov 4, 2021
“Did He Just Say Gulp?”
I have Covid-19, and am confined to quarters. So time to catch up on some streaming films. New on Netflix is “Army of Thieves”, a quirky prequel, of sorts, to Zac Snyder’s “Army of the Dead“.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated American Gods in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I have only ever read one other adult book ( I don't count Coraline) by Gaiman, which was vastly different from this book in both style and mood - Stardust. A friend recommended I read this book many years ago since I like mythology. I found this book really had not much to do with mythology in the classic sense. Instead the characters that were pulled from mythology, such as Odin, Anansi, Horus, Bast, and Ganesha, among others, behaved like has-been D-list celebrities that struggle to survive in a country that is repeatedly described as "...a bad land for gods." The powers they rarely put on display were minimal and amounted to the same kind of "magic" as a skilled pick-pocket, con-artist, or amateur magician. The few times any real power is observed is once during the sexual scene of a re-invented Queen of Sheba (I'll spare you the R-rated details) and when the gods travel "behind the scenes," a state of existence that only the gods can enter.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.
While the names of classical mythology fit into the category of the Old Gods, there are New Gods that have taken root in America, born from cultural obsessions that have evolved and devolved over the years, such as railroads - a man dressed as a railroad conductor, television - a voice talking through Lucille Ball on a rerun of I Love Lucy, vehicles - stocky men that seemed to resemble vehicles themselves, and internet - a short, nerdy, nervous kid, among other American fixations and stereotypes.
In addition, one of the scenic devices used throughout the plot is what Gaiman's characters describe as places of power - side-of-the-road dives that road-trippers visit for no apparent reason, such as a place boasting the largest doll collection in America or the biggest wheel of cheese. And no, Disneyworld is not one of them.
One of the things I found interesting about this Gaiman-born world is that the Old Gods only exist in the New World when regular people travel from other countries and bring their memories and practices with them, even when they don't intend to stay themselves. The gods are "born" from these average people, and even though they can be killed by others, they don't die otherwise, but instead alternately starve or thrive based on the behavior of the people who live and die in the New World. They all have counterpart manifestations of themselves in the countries they are pulled from, but one's existence does not affect the other - though they do seem to be aware of each other.
All of this is merely the background of the main plot, which centers around the activities and travels of a seemingly mortal man with a single name, Shadow. I never did "get" the one-name thing, but whatever. Through Shadow's narration, the reader learns of an impending storm - a battle between the Old Gods and New Gods, the former fighting for survival and the latter fighting for dominance. Shadow works for a mysterious "Mr. Wednesday" and is randomly haunted by his dead wife, Laura, but otherwise seems to have little drive of his own for most of the book. In fitting irony, he has his own brand of "magic" - an obsession for coin tricks to pass the time from his days spent in prison - which I could never really follow the descriptions of.
To be completely honest, I truly did enjoy this book, though I am struggling to say exactly why. Perhaps I was fascinated by the "shadowy" way that Gaiman told the story, or how he developed this over-the-hill world of gods and goddesses that better resembled America's middle and poor classes' struggles for survival, money, and influence. Some of the personal touches that Shadow's character added to the plot made him at times surprisingly endearing. In addition, the way that Shadow seemed to address the reader at the very end of the book was so satisfying that I laughed out loud and had to read it again several times. Something about that just brought the book to life for me and help me to fully appreciate the versatile style of Gaiman. This is one of those books you don't have to fully understand to fully appreciate.
Mothergamer (1555 KP) rated The Green Hornet (2011) in Movies
Apr 3, 2019
I don't even have the words for how infuriated I am right now with The Green Hornet film. There's a small part of me that wishes I could just throw a brick at Seth Rogen's crotch right now, because he absolutely deserves it along with director Michael Gondry. That's right, the director of the film Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind which to me was a good movie is responsible for this equally terrible movie.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
I do feel much of the blame lies with the fact that Seth Rogen co-wrote this screenplay and he claimed that he was so glad he didn't screw up one of his favorite childhood heroes. Seth, Seth, Seth....tsk tsk, someone's a dirty rotten liar Seth. Why must you constantly lie to us Seth? The truth is you messed up completely! In the original radio show, comics, and T.V. Show Britt Reid wasn't a moron. He was a smart successful newspaper publisher, he was confident, and he could fight well alongside his equally confident sidekick Kato. I loved the T.V. show and I loved the comic. I loved watching The Green Hornet on Kung Fu Saturday when I was a kid. That was the highlight of my Saturday. I would watch a couple of episodes of The Green Hornet and then watch the featured kung fu film. That's a sacred childhood memory and you, Seth Rogen along with your director have pissed all over it.
Not only did you make Britt Reid a total jerk, you made him stupid too! He loosely based Britt Reid on Paris Hilton? Are you kidding me with this nonsense?
Seth Rogen's Britt Reid is a spoiled rich brat who shows no interest in running the newspaper, but he instead becomes buddies with Kato his mechanic and coffee maker. I felt bad for Jay Chou because he's no Bruce Lee, but he did alright in spite of Seth Rogen constantly hyperventilating and shouting in every scene. He tried, he really did. Cameron Diaz's role as Reid's secretary Lenore Case is completely useless. She's basically camera filler with a great smile.
Of course, The Green Hornet has to have a villain and that is Christoph Waltz (Oscar winner from Inglorious Basterds) as Chudnofsky, but there is no depth to the character which proves bad writing is bad writing. Now I like action scenes as much as the next person, but it's as if Seth Rogen got bored and just added as much action as possible as filler rather than having an actual plot that tells the story. There's also so much pointless dialogue, watching this train wreck of a film is like being stuck in a dentist's chair having a root canal with no anesthesia. Yes, it's that damn bad. Not even the overpriced 3-D could save this film. That is just a gimmick to get more money out of people and this film proved that point real quick.
There is so much that could have been done to make this film version of the T.V. show great, but none of it was done. Instead, we get a film that is so terrible with no plot at all, a fake Britt Reid (I don't care what you say Rogen, that character you played was NOT Britt Reid! You are a liar sir!), a subdued Kato that got overshadowed by the crazy rich brat, a useless vapid secretary, and a villain that's about as threatening as a labradoodle. Seth Rogen and Michale Gondry you should be ashamed and embarrassed that your names are on this piece of trash.
Don't waste your money on this folks and certainly don't waste it on 3-D. The original is better and I'm sure that Mr. Rogen's going to have several bricks thrown at his crotch for even writing this awful screenplay. Just please, do us a favor and go sit in the corner with M. Night Shyamalan and quit making movies, because you really screwed the pooch on this one pal.
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated Touched: The Caress of Fate in Books
May 23, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It was a great way to open the series. At first, I feared the book would consistently be confusing about the Angel of Death, Evan, but was pleasantly pleased that as the story went on that a lot of the confusion I had in the beginning was answered. I enjoyed learning about Evan and his brothers in arms and how they came about their particular gifts. I also enjoyed watching Evan transform from someone who doesn't have strong feelings or anything about his missions or anyone in particular to someone who cares very deeply and finds a reason for living and fighting against all odds.
At first, I was concerned about how Evan's past and being would interfere with his curiosity about Gemma and their blossoming relationship, even just as friends. As the story went on, I found myself being drawn deeper and deeper into the story. I can't say that I loved Evan and at times I even doubted his intentions, but I found how Gemma's view of him and her feelings for him made me root for him. I can't say how he seemed to play her in games she had no idea she was in, to be repulsive, but her way of understanding and the way he made her feel, made me smile. I found that the romance in this book, very clean and innocent, was refreshing and definitely helped curb the romance craving I had.
However, even with the romance, the action towards the end made it quite delightful. It helped explain more about the Angels of Death and a few things that were unclear. I also enjoyed learning about a different idea about how Heaven and Hell worked as well as a new view on Adam and Eve from the bible. With the different ideas the story presented, I found it to be amazingly refreshing. I found Amore to have beautiful details on the surroundings and the people in the story. It helped to draw in the reader and make it easy to actually visualize the scenery and practically feel like you were there and experiencing the scenes yourself.
I found the descriptions of the emotions felt to also be very realistic. We all know how it feels to be betrayed or like we don't have control over ourselves and to see these characters struggle with these emotions and these urges to be close to each other, helped remind us how much love can make you feel crazy and yet be amazing. I enjoyed how the description of their actions towards each other and how it made the other feel created my own thoughts of the first time my husband and I met and even held hands. I was thoroughly pleased with how well love was portrayed in this book. I have rarely found romance books that created that warm fuzzy feeling within my heart as this book has done for me. Most romance books can be slightly dirty, but this one wasn't so and that pleased me. I often find myself not wanting to read triple x rated scenes in books. It is a book I would even let my daughter read when she turned thirteen, unlike other romance novels.
I also enjoyed how that death wasn't the end but the final step for the soul to get to where it belonged and that lives are just borrowed time until your acceptance into Heaven, or Eden as it was called, or into Hell was made. It really makes you think about if it was true or just another idea created about the death. I found it truly exciting to think about and discuss with others around me. It was a new take and a delightful thought to have presented it to me in such a wonderful story.
Overall, I would recommend this book to those who love the paranormal and romance. I would rate this book four stars out of five stars. Even though I would love to have had a little more, I would definitely think its a good opening to the series and makes it so you want to read the rest of the five book series.
At first, I was concerned about how Evan's past and being would interfere with his curiosity about Gemma and their blossoming relationship, even just as friends. As the story went on, I found myself being drawn deeper and deeper into the story. I can't say that I loved Evan and at times I even doubted his intentions, but I found how Gemma's view of him and her feelings for him made me root for him. I can't say how he seemed to play her in games she had no idea she was in, to be repulsive, but her way of understanding and the way he made her feel, made me smile. I found that the romance in this book, very clean and innocent, was refreshing and definitely helped curb the romance craving I had.
However, even with the romance, the action towards the end made it quite delightful. It helped explain more about the Angels of Death and a few things that were unclear. I also enjoyed learning about a different idea about how Heaven and Hell worked as well as a new view on Adam and Eve from the bible. With the different ideas the story presented, I found it to be amazingly refreshing. I found Amore to have beautiful details on the surroundings and the people in the story. It helped to draw in the reader and make it easy to actually visualize the scenery and practically feel like you were there and experiencing the scenes yourself.
I found the descriptions of the emotions felt to also be very realistic. We all know how it feels to be betrayed or like we don't have control over ourselves and to see these characters struggle with these emotions and these urges to be close to each other, helped remind us how much love can make you feel crazy and yet be amazing. I enjoyed how the description of their actions towards each other and how it made the other feel created my own thoughts of the first time my husband and I met and even held hands. I was thoroughly pleased with how well love was portrayed in this book. I have rarely found romance books that created that warm fuzzy feeling within my heart as this book has done for me. Most romance books can be slightly dirty, but this one wasn't so and that pleased me. I often find myself not wanting to read triple x rated scenes in books. It is a book I would even let my daughter read when she turned thirteen, unlike other romance novels.
I also enjoyed how that death wasn't the end but the final step for the soul to get to where it belonged and that lives are just borrowed time until your acceptance into Heaven, or Eden as it was called, or into Hell was made. It really makes you think about if it was true or just another idea created about the death. I found it truly exciting to think about and discuss with others around me. It was a new take and a delightful thought to have presented it to me in such a wonderful story.
Overall, I would recommend this book to those who love the paranormal and romance. I would rate this book four stars out of five stars. Even though I would love to have had a little more, I would definitely think its a good opening to the series and makes it so you want to read the rest of the five book series.