Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Last Flag Flying (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
The true cost of war goes beyond the numbers of the dead and wounded that we see in textbooks, lectures, and in news reports. Each number represents a person who either perished or was injured. We overlook the extended impact that this loss of life or experience has on their families and friends. Even more, we often overlook the lasting impact that warfare has on the men and women exposed to it.
In Last Flag Flying Steve Carell (The Office, 40-Year-Old Virgin), Brian Cranston (Breaking Bad), and Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix) play veterans who reunite thirty years after serving together in Vietnam to bury one of their sons who has been killed in Iraq. Doc (Steve Carell) tracks down his friends in order to find some closure as to events they faced in their past and to find some sanity and clarity in the death of his son.
The film brings home the horror of war and demonstrates how men and women, out of a sense of duty, find themselves in the same situation as previous generations as they left home to serve their nation. The film is uncomfortable, with good reason, as it makes audiences reflect on the meaning of sacrifice, duty, and honor. The three characters offer the film the opportunity to demonstrate the contrast between youth and experience. It demonstrates how people can have the same experiences but are changed by it to varying degrees. Nothing is uniform about how they adapt to their experiences or in how they cope with the horrors they witnessed.
Last Flag Flying offers a much-needed, sobering perspective about war and how the experiences of war never quite leave those who survived. Carell, Cranston, and Fishburne offer up performances that demonstrate the power of friendship and brotherhood that forms for those who serve together. For those who served and those who haven’t, the film offers audiences the ability to gain a greater understanding of what life is like for those men and women once they take off the uniform.
In Last Flag Flying Steve Carell (The Office, 40-Year-Old Virgin), Brian Cranston (Breaking Bad), and Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix) play veterans who reunite thirty years after serving together in Vietnam to bury one of their sons who has been killed in Iraq. Doc (Steve Carell) tracks down his friends in order to find some closure as to events they faced in their past and to find some sanity and clarity in the death of his son.
The film brings home the horror of war and demonstrates how men and women, out of a sense of duty, find themselves in the same situation as previous generations as they left home to serve their nation. The film is uncomfortable, with good reason, as it makes audiences reflect on the meaning of sacrifice, duty, and honor. The three characters offer the film the opportunity to demonstrate the contrast between youth and experience. It demonstrates how people can have the same experiences but are changed by it to varying degrees. Nothing is uniform about how they adapt to their experiences or in how they cope with the horrors they witnessed.
Last Flag Flying offers a much-needed, sobering perspective about war and how the experiences of war never quite leave those who survived. Carell, Cranston, and Fishburne offer up performances that demonstrate the power of friendship and brotherhood that forms for those who serve together. For those who served and those who haven’t, the film offers audiences the ability to gain a greater understanding of what life is like for those men and women once they take off the uniform.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Rings (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Going in I have to admit I had the lowest expectations for this movie. And indeed it starts off seeming like a complete joke with a scene on a plane that is reminiscent of “Snakes on Plane” but with an evil spirit, flies, and black sludge instead of snakes. The theater filled with laughter for the first five minutes.
A plot about a film that kills people who watch it is in itself offputtingly hokey. Previously I was never a fan of “The Ring” or “The Ring 2,” and I did not find either of them memorable to say the least. But, this sequel starts off in such a comedic fashion that most people will no longer have expectations to be scared. But this may not be a bad thing at all.
After the first few scenes something happens, and the film begins to be more artsy rather than hokey. Trippy effects like rain flowing upward or weird black liquid that almost looks like melted latex flowing out each time the evil spirit is coming, make this a surreal piece of entertainment. This film is actually best described as a modern day dark fairy tale and not a horror film.
Parts of the plot are very dark as you learn the complete story of Samara. Themes of captivity, murder, infanticide, and child molestation subtly peak into the plot. But it does not delve too far into these aspects which could have been truly twisted, instead it veers off into a more modern theme.
A college professor, Gabriel (Johnny Galecki), who teaches an experimental biology course and studies the afterlife, discovers the deadly film when he buys an old VCR. After watching it himself he comes up with a creative way of keeping himself and others who watch it alive. Hint – it involves a selfish pattern of sacrifice, which is a bit darkly comedic but also a realistic and shadowy reflection of human nature.
“Rings” is no horror masterpiece, but it is entertaining, unique, and a tad bit creepy.
A plot about a film that kills people who watch it is in itself offputtingly hokey. Previously I was never a fan of “The Ring” or “The Ring 2,” and I did not find either of them memorable to say the least. But, this sequel starts off in such a comedic fashion that most people will no longer have expectations to be scared. But this may not be a bad thing at all.
After the first few scenes something happens, and the film begins to be more artsy rather than hokey. Trippy effects like rain flowing upward or weird black liquid that almost looks like melted latex flowing out each time the evil spirit is coming, make this a surreal piece of entertainment. This film is actually best described as a modern day dark fairy tale and not a horror film.
Parts of the plot are very dark as you learn the complete story of Samara. Themes of captivity, murder, infanticide, and child molestation subtly peak into the plot. But it does not delve too far into these aspects which could have been truly twisted, instead it veers off into a more modern theme.
A college professor, Gabriel (Johnny Galecki), who teaches an experimental biology course and studies the afterlife, discovers the deadly film when he buys an old VCR. After watching it himself he comes up with a creative way of keeping himself and others who watch it alive. Hint – it involves a selfish pattern of sacrifice, which is a bit darkly comedic but also a realistic and shadowy reflection of human nature.
“Rings” is no horror masterpiece, but it is entertaining, unique, and a tad bit creepy.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Monster Trucks (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
It’s safe to say that movies nowadays are either remakes of beloved classic movies, based off a book, or are a sequel. Original ideas and story lines are few and far between. When I first heard about this so-called movie Monster Trucks, I thought it was going to be about those hug trucks you see at Monster Jam shows driving over cars with their loud engines entertaining crowds. This film is far from anything of the sort. It’s based off the idea from a 4 year old about monster trucks actually having monsters in the trucks.
Set in a small oil drilling town in North Dakota, Tripp (Lucas Till), a troubled high school student, befriends an extraterrestrial squid-like creature that takes up residence in the hood of Tripp’s truck. After an accident occurs at a nearby drilling site displacing this creature, it doesn’t take long for the oil company to realize if they don’t locate this creature, they will have to cease drilling which affects their bottom line. With the help of his friend Meredith (Jane Levy), Tripp realizes he must take his new friend back to his home before the villainous oil company CEO ( Rob Lowe) catches them.
If you take the movie for what it is: trucks, monsters, friends, and good guy/bad guys-it’s an entertaining film with some great laugh out loud moments that also attempts to tug at the heartstrings from a pair of unlikely friends. Dig deeper and try to analyze every piece of the movie, you’ll only see the outlandish, unrealistic, and far fetch concept with underdeveloped character relationships. All in all, I enjoyed the film. The friendship between Tripp and the creature he named Creech was similar to that of Elliott and E.T. with less drama. It brought me back to my childhood. It taught my son the meaning of friendship, sacrifice, and loyalty.
Set in a small oil drilling town in North Dakota, Tripp (Lucas Till), a troubled high school student, befriends an extraterrestrial squid-like creature that takes up residence in the hood of Tripp’s truck. After an accident occurs at a nearby drilling site displacing this creature, it doesn’t take long for the oil company to realize if they don’t locate this creature, they will have to cease drilling which affects their bottom line. With the help of his friend Meredith (Jane Levy), Tripp realizes he must take his new friend back to his home before the villainous oil company CEO ( Rob Lowe) catches them.
If you take the movie for what it is: trucks, monsters, friends, and good guy/bad guys-it’s an entertaining film with some great laugh out loud moments that also attempts to tug at the heartstrings from a pair of unlikely friends. Dig deeper and try to analyze every piece of the movie, you’ll only see the outlandish, unrealistic, and far fetch concept with underdeveloped character relationships. All in all, I enjoyed the film. The friendship between Tripp and the creature he named Creech was similar to that of Elliott and E.T. with less drama. It brought me back to my childhood. It taught my son the meaning of friendship, sacrifice, and loyalty.
The Warmth of Other Suns
Book
From the winner of the Pulitzer Prize, this is one of the great untold stories of American history:...
Dungeon Survival
Games
App
[*] Game Features ·Randomly generated cave levels provide a different game experience every time! ...
As Dust Dances
10.0
Rate It
Book
The New York Times Bestselling author of the On Dublin Street series and PLAY ON returns to the...
Romance Contemporary Fiction Rockstar
The Heart of a Hussar (The Winged Warrior #1)
Book
Poland is at war. He must choose between his lifelong ambition and his heart. Exploiting...
Historical Fiction Polish Winged Hussars
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Hellraiser (1987) in Movies
Nov 14, 2021
All these years later, and Hellraiser is still a treat. I've always had respect for Clive Barker's directorial debut. It came out in a decade where the genre had become more schlocky and less serious with each passing year, and dared to go for the jugular with its straight shooting, no nonsense brand of horror.
It has an engaging plot, focusing primarily on a forbidden love between Julia, and her husband's brother Frank. When Frank is quite literally torn apart after messing with an ancient puzzle box, it quickly becomes apparent that he can return to the land of the living through blood sacrifice, resulting in Julia luring unsuspecting victims to their doom in order to be with Frank once again. It's a twisted love story, effectively making Hellraiser a romance-horror, centering around a toxic relationship. The cast performances are varied for sure, but of course Clare Higgins is a stand out. Her portrayal of Julia is sympathetic as she is quite clearly besotted with and somewhat scared of Frank, whilst also managing to be a confident and calculating villain.
Then there is the iconic Pinhead, one of several cenobites that are summoned when the puzzle box is completed, and a horror antagonist that stands shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Michael Myers and Freddy Krueger. His presence here is effective in the way that it's seldom. When he does appear, Doug Bradley delivers every line with terrifying conviction, with some hugely memorable dialogue.
The practical effects on display are fantastic as well. Frank's ressurection scene in particular is striking, and one of the finest examples of practical horror effects out there. The cenobites themselves boast some memorable designs, and looks suitably unsettling. It also has a haunting and beautiful music score, courtesy of Christopher Young, that really ties everything together nicely.
Hellraiser is an all timer. A film that deserves its place in the horror hall of fame without question.
It has an engaging plot, focusing primarily on a forbidden love between Julia, and her husband's brother Frank. When Frank is quite literally torn apart after messing with an ancient puzzle box, it quickly becomes apparent that he can return to the land of the living through blood sacrifice, resulting in Julia luring unsuspecting victims to their doom in order to be with Frank once again. It's a twisted love story, effectively making Hellraiser a romance-horror, centering around a toxic relationship. The cast performances are varied for sure, but of course Clare Higgins is a stand out. Her portrayal of Julia is sympathetic as she is quite clearly besotted with and somewhat scared of Frank, whilst also managing to be a confident and calculating villain.
Then there is the iconic Pinhead, one of several cenobites that are summoned when the puzzle box is completed, and a horror antagonist that stands shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Michael Myers and Freddy Krueger. His presence here is effective in the way that it's seldom. When he does appear, Doug Bradley delivers every line with terrifying conviction, with some hugely memorable dialogue.
The practical effects on display are fantastic as well. Frank's ressurection scene in particular is striking, and one of the finest examples of practical horror effects out there. The cenobites themselves boast some memorable designs, and looks suitably unsettling. It also has a haunting and beautiful music score, courtesy of Christopher Young, that really ties everything together nicely.
Hellraiser is an all timer. A film that deserves its place in the horror hall of fame without question.
Mariafrancesca (30 KP) rated The Demon’s surrendee (Demon’s Lexicon #3) in Books
Apr 7, 2019
This is a review for the whole series
I read these books because a friend of mine suggested them and she enjoyed them very much. I really like Sarah Rees Brennan style, it is funny and engaging and I really couldn't put these books down. However the end of this trilogy makes me angry, there are so many problems with it that I don't know where to start. I apologise in advance for the mistakes in this review, I am not a native speaker so please be patient.
The Disney happy ending: I don't want to comment the fact that everyone gets paired off here, but what about the magicians? In this book the magicians are evil, they kill people, they are addicted to power, the lousy solution they found through Jamie it's not solid. What happens when Jamie dies? When Nick dies? It can last for 50-60 years, what then? This magicians are not vampires that can drink animal blood, they are addicts that need to kill people in order to have power, this solution is just temporary and I cannot see another way to make it happens afterwards, unless they start to sacrifice babies that is even worse. Moreover they unleash 2 demons on Earth (the most irresponsible and incoherent thing they can do after 3 books of saying how they are pure evil) and the only explanation we get is "winning a war comes with a price"
Diversity: the way diversity is treated in this book is ridiculous. She throws in some black or gay character, family problems, a past of abuses and then she uses them to makes the white rich kids shine. I will talk about Sin in a minute, but what about Seb? He could have been such a precious character instead you see him as bully, then as the magicians' pet, then he gets to date the boy he always loved in secret, after he bullied him for years, just because he's the only gay character still available
All that is wrong with Sin:
The Character: Sin is a strong teenage girl who had a tough life but she has always worked hard to achieve her goal: become the leader of a place that she loves deeply, understands deeply and where she spent her entire life. And when a tourist threats to get the position instead, she is the first to recognise that this girl who has been at the Goblin Market 4 times is better than her in everything. Sin doesn't simply fail, she surrenders to the fact that Mae's is better than her and she just let her have the Market. Sin, that should be the main character of the third book, stays a secondary character with no development other than getting rid of a stupid superstition about limping guys and getting a boyfriend.
Point of view: although I enjoyed Sin's POV far more than Mae's, I can't see the reason of this choice. The previous POV where of main characters who were actually living the situation and acting in the situation. In here Sin, instead of becoming a main character, spends more than half of the book overhearing conversations (with her supernatural hearing) and following Mae's plans. Again, it seems they wanted to show off about the diversity inside this book and instead it results in a joke. Alan's POV, or Jamie's, would have been so much better.
All that is wrong with Mae:
I am not a fan of Mae, I couldn't stand her form the beginning. I don't want to get started on this because I could talk about it for hours but to summarise my opinion, I think that author wanted to go for a character very much like Hermione but much more popular and cool. The problem is that Hermione, even though she is smart and talented, succeeds in everything she does because she works very hard to get there she sacrifice herself for a greater cause, and she has flow and doubts as every teenager. Mae succeeds in everything without any particular reason, she is just lucky and most of the time she doesn't deserve what she gets.
Last but not lest: COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW ON EARTH A DEMON AND A HUMAN GIRL GET TOGETHER?????
The Disney happy ending: I don't want to comment the fact that everyone gets paired off here, but what about the magicians? In this book the magicians are evil, they kill people, they are addicted to power, the lousy solution they found through Jamie it's not solid. What happens when Jamie dies? When Nick dies? It can last for 50-60 years, what then? This magicians are not vampires that can drink animal blood, they are addicts that need to kill people in order to have power, this solution is just temporary and I cannot see another way to make it happens afterwards, unless they start to sacrifice babies that is even worse. Moreover they unleash 2 demons on Earth (the most irresponsible and incoherent thing they can do after 3 books of saying how they are pure evil) and the only explanation we get is "winning a war comes with a price"
Diversity: the way diversity is treated in this book is ridiculous. She throws in some black or gay character, family problems, a past of abuses and then she uses them to makes the white rich kids shine. I will talk about Sin in a minute, but what about Seb? He could have been such a precious character instead you see him as bully, then as the magicians' pet, then he gets to date the boy he always loved in secret, after he bullied him for years, just because he's the only gay character still available
All that is wrong with Sin:
The Character: Sin is a strong teenage girl who had a tough life but she has always worked hard to achieve her goal: become the leader of a place that she loves deeply, understands deeply and where she spent her entire life. And when a tourist threats to get the position instead, she is the first to recognise that this girl who has been at the Goblin Market 4 times is better than her in everything. Sin doesn't simply fail, she surrenders to the fact that Mae's is better than her and she just let her have the Market. Sin, that should be the main character of the third book, stays a secondary character with no development other than getting rid of a stupid superstition about limping guys and getting a boyfriend.
Point of view: although I enjoyed Sin's POV far more than Mae's, I can't see the reason of this choice. The previous POV where of main characters who were actually living the situation and acting in the situation. In here Sin, instead of becoming a main character, spends more than half of the book overhearing conversations (with her supernatural hearing) and following Mae's plans. Again, it seems they wanted to show off about the diversity inside this book and instead it results in a joke. Alan's POV, or Jamie's, would have been so much better.
All that is wrong with Mae:
I am not a fan of Mae, I couldn't stand her form the beginning. I don't want to get started on this because I could talk about it for hours but to summarise my opinion, I think that author wanted to go for a character very much like Hermione but much more popular and cool. The problem is that Hermione, even though she is smart and talented, succeeds in everything she does because she works very hard to get there she sacrifice herself for a greater cause, and she has flow and doubts as every teenager. Mae succeeds in everything without any particular reason, she is just lucky and most of the time she doesn't deserve what she gets.
Last but not lest: COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW ON EARTH A DEMON AND A HUMAN GIRL GET TOGETHER?????