Search
Search results
Letter Quiz - alphabet tracing for kids
Games and Education
App
Letter Quiz is the best way to learn the English Alphabet with over 10,000 copies being purchased by...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Searching (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A phenomenally intriguing social media-focused movie.
There have been many movies that have featured computing and, more specifically, social media at their heart. Some these have used the device of the view “from the screen”: 2016’s entertaining “Nerve” had elements of this, with the majority of the rest of the film being ‘augmented reality’ over the video. But it was 2014’s teen-horror “Unfriended” that set a new bar being seen entirely through a computer screen. No surprise then that the producer of that one – Timur Bekmambetov – is also behind “Searching”. For – although taking a few liberties with news vidoes, that may or may not be showing on Youtube – the whole film is shot through computer screens.
“Oh no!” you sigh “another gimmicky B-movie”. Far from it. Not only is this a really helpful training film for Windows tips and tricks! It’s also a totally absorbing crime mystery anchored by a superb script that keeps the audience guessing to the end.
John Cho – most famous as Sulu in the Star Trek reboots – plays David Kim who is trying to control his 16 year-old daughter Margot (Michelle Ya, in her movie debut). Kim, working in some form of product development, is no technology luddite, and when Margot disappears he uses his nous about social media to try to piece together the fragments of the puzzle to assist police Detective Vick (Debra Messing, “Grace” in “Will and Grace”).
To say any more would ruin what is a masterly roller-coaster ride of twists and turns. The script by first-time director Aneesh Chaganty and Sev Ohanian doesn’t let its audience relax for a moment, spawning more movie cul-de-sacs and red herrings than a classic Agatha Christie.
In the acting stakes John Cho – who really doesn’t get given much to do in the Star Trek background – is here impressively believable as the parent, struggling with both bringing up a teen – enough to stress any mortal out – and an emotional past. Ms La is also equally engaging, given most of her scenes are via close-up web cam.
Criticisms? The film, at 102 minutes, might have usefully trimmed 10 minutes to be an even tighter 90 minute classic. I also thought it pulled its punches in the finale, where a director of the calibre of Hitchcock might have gone for a much darker angle without a qualm.
But I’m nit-picking. This is an excellent thriller that also effectively drills into grief and bereavement (a warning for anyone struggling with this – especially via the “Big C”… you might want to give this one a miss… #Up). It also ironically highlights that whilst broadcasting by people has never been more prevelant, communication between family members is sometimes totally lacking.
Clearly people agree with me that it is excellent: the preview cinema audience I saw this with was buzzing afterwards, and this won the “Audience Award” at Sundance.
“Searching” will be on general release in the UK and US from August 31st 2018. Highly recommended!
“Oh no!” you sigh “another gimmicky B-movie”. Far from it. Not only is this a really helpful training film for Windows tips and tricks! It’s also a totally absorbing crime mystery anchored by a superb script that keeps the audience guessing to the end.
John Cho – most famous as Sulu in the Star Trek reboots – plays David Kim who is trying to control his 16 year-old daughter Margot (Michelle Ya, in her movie debut). Kim, working in some form of product development, is no technology luddite, and when Margot disappears he uses his nous about social media to try to piece together the fragments of the puzzle to assist police Detective Vick (Debra Messing, “Grace” in “Will and Grace”).
To say any more would ruin what is a masterly roller-coaster ride of twists and turns. The script by first-time director Aneesh Chaganty and Sev Ohanian doesn’t let its audience relax for a moment, spawning more movie cul-de-sacs and red herrings than a classic Agatha Christie.
In the acting stakes John Cho – who really doesn’t get given much to do in the Star Trek background – is here impressively believable as the parent, struggling with both bringing up a teen – enough to stress any mortal out – and an emotional past. Ms La is also equally engaging, given most of her scenes are via close-up web cam.
Criticisms? The film, at 102 minutes, might have usefully trimmed 10 minutes to be an even tighter 90 minute classic. I also thought it pulled its punches in the finale, where a director of the calibre of Hitchcock might have gone for a much darker angle without a qualm.
But I’m nit-picking. This is an excellent thriller that also effectively drills into grief and bereavement (a warning for anyone struggling with this – especially via the “Big C”… you might want to give this one a miss… #Up). It also ironically highlights that whilst broadcasting by people has never been more prevelant, communication between family members is sometimes totally lacking.
Clearly people agree with me that it is excellent: the preview cinema audience I saw this with was buzzing afterwards, and this won the “Audience Award” at Sundance.
“Searching” will be on general release in the UK and US from August 31st 2018. Highly recommended!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Evil dead rise (2023) in Movies
Apr 19, 2023
Usually when a film series is embarking on a fifth outing the challenges
of keeping things fresh and original yet being new and creative can be a
massive obstacle.
Horror series ranging from “Halloween” to “Friday the 13th”, “SAW”, and
“A Nightmare on Elm Street” all faced issues with moving the series along
yet trying to stay true to the original film that inspired them and in
every case; failing to fully capture what made the original film a hit.
“Evil Dead Rise” is not only the latest entry into the series but a bold
take on the cinematic series as it abandons the remote cabin setting of
the first two films and the reboot in favor of an urban setting.
The film does open in a remote lakeside locale before jumping a day
earlier to California where estranged sisters Ellie (Alyssa Sutherland)
and Beth (Lilly Sullivan) reunite. Beth has been working as a guitar
technician and bristles that her sister refers to her as a groupie.
Ellie is raising three children after their father left and informs her
sister that the building they are living in is scheduled to be demolished
so they will have to move soon which is a shock to Beth as she has learned
that she is pregnant and is trying to figure out her life all the while
seeing what she thought would be a source of stability for her upended.
The arrival of an earthquake allows access to a hidden area in the parking
garage of their building and since the locale was a former bank; the kids
soon find a hidden book and records which the only son Danny (Morgan
Davies) hopes he can sell despite his sister Bridget (Gabrielle Echols)
admonishing him constantly to leave it alone and return it to where it was
found.
The book turns out to be a Necronomicon or “Book of the Dead” and as fans
of the series know; nothing good ever comes from one and thanks to playing
old records left by a Priest describing his thoughts on the book; a
summoning incantation is read and this causes Ellie to become possessed
and unleash grotesque carnage and terror on her family.
What follows is a gory and at times intense game of cat and mouse
punctuated by moments of levity as the demonic infestation knows no end.
The film has the over-the top- gore that is expected of the series and the
makeup and effects are very effective. Writer?Director Lee Cronin has done
a great job capturing the tone of the series while moving it forward as he
cleverly incorporates lines and nods to the series without making them
seem forced.
Some may find the excess of blood too much but the series has always been
known for taking things to the extreme as the blend of horror and comedic
parody is what made the original film such a success.
In the end “Evil Dead Rise” does enough to keep fans of the series happy
and hopefully we will be seeing a new entry in the series in the future.
3.5 stars out of 5
of keeping things fresh and original yet being new and creative can be a
massive obstacle.
Horror series ranging from “Halloween” to “Friday the 13th”, “SAW”, and
“A Nightmare on Elm Street” all faced issues with moving the series along
yet trying to stay true to the original film that inspired them and in
every case; failing to fully capture what made the original film a hit.
“Evil Dead Rise” is not only the latest entry into the series but a bold
take on the cinematic series as it abandons the remote cabin setting of
the first two films and the reboot in favor of an urban setting.
The film does open in a remote lakeside locale before jumping a day
earlier to California where estranged sisters Ellie (Alyssa Sutherland)
and Beth (Lilly Sullivan) reunite. Beth has been working as a guitar
technician and bristles that her sister refers to her as a groupie.
Ellie is raising three children after their father left and informs her
sister that the building they are living in is scheduled to be demolished
so they will have to move soon which is a shock to Beth as she has learned
that she is pregnant and is trying to figure out her life all the while
seeing what she thought would be a source of stability for her upended.
The arrival of an earthquake allows access to a hidden area in the parking
garage of their building and since the locale was a former bank; the kids
soon find a hidden book and records which the only son Danny (Morgan
Davies) hopes he can sell despite his sister Bridget (Gabrielle Echols)
admonishing him constantly to leave it alone and return it to where it was
found.
The book turns out to be a Necronomicon or “Book of the Dead” and as fans
of the series know; nothing good ever comes from one and thanks to playing
old records left by a Priest describing his thoughts on the book; a
summoning incantation is read and this causes Ellie to become possessed
and unleash grotesque carnage and terror on her family.
What follows is a gory and at times intense game of cat and mouse
punctuated by moments of levity as the demonic infestation knows no end.
The film has the over-the top- gore that is expected of the series and the
makeup and effects are very effective. Writer?Director Lee Cronin has done
a great job capturing the tone of the series while moving it forward as he
cleverly incorporates lines and nods to the series without making them
seem forced.
Some may find the excess of blood too much but the series has always been
known for taking things to the extreme as the blend of horror and comedic
parody is what made the original film such a success.
In the end “Evil Dead Rise” does enough to keep fans of the series happy
and hopefully we will be seeing a new entry in the series in the future.
3.5 stars out of 5
Remind Me (Mystic Beach Fantasy Rockstar Romances, #4)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Recipe for a Delicious Love Story: • 1 spicy rockstar • 1 salty chef • a sweet first love ...
Paranormal RockStar Romance
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The little mermaid (2023) in Movies
May 26, 2023
(By my wife Genevieve)I must admit that I may be biased about this movie, being a huge fan of all things Disney. However, the popular and beloved original The Little Mermaid was released in November 1989, about 6 months before I graduated high school. Not really the age to be that interested in an animated movie about a mermaid who trades her voice away to be able to live where the people are. But of course, I still watched it and I, like many, definitely loved the songs. The storyline? Not so much.
When I first heard a live-action version was in the works, my initial response was tepid, "That's nice." Only when I heard a person of color would play Ariel was my curiosity really piqued. As a minority, when many asked, "Why?", I thought, "Why not?" I was very moved when I saw the videos of young Black girls reacting excitedly to the first trailer when they discovered Ariel looked like them, further answering the many still asking "Why?" with "This. This is why."
If you've seen the animated version, then you know the gist of the story - young mermaid Ariel, played beautifully by Halle Bailey, is fascinated by the world above the water and collects all the human thingamabobs that litter the sea floor. She rebels against her father, King Triton, the handsome Javier Bardem, by giving in to her curiosity and ends up rescuing the merchant Prince Eric from drowning when the ship he's sailing is caught in a treacherous storm. Ariel is instantly smitten and Prince Eric, played by the perfectly-cast Jonah Hauer-King, is equally obsessed with the voice he heard as he was revived by Ariel’s siren song.
While obviously geared towards a younger audience, I found much to love about this movie. Jodi Benson’s original version will always be perfection, but Halle Bailey’s emotional rendition of “Part of Your World”, coupled with her luminous and expressive face, was just phenomenal. I had to temper my applause after her performance while a few appreciative “Whooo!” sounded through the audience. Melissa McCarthy’s Ursula and her iconic “Poor Unfortunate Souls” was definitely a highlight. Daveed Diggs as Sebastian (also inspired casting) and Awkwafina as Scuttle need their own spinoff. They’re hilarious together.
Alan Menken’s classic songs from the original were given new life by McCarthy, Bailey, and Diggs, and Lin Manuel Miranda’s signature touch is easily identifiable in the new ballads for Ariel and Prince Eric, and a Hamilton-style rap by Awkwafina and Diggs.
I appreciated the parallel stories with the prince just as curious about the world beyond his island as Ariel is about the world beyond her ocean, both bound by duty to their parents and their people, while yearning to explore the great “out there”. In all my Disney and Pixar movie-watching experiences, it has consistently been Pixar movies that get me emotionally compromised, so I was a bit surprised to find myself reaching for a napkin at the end of this movie, after a scene between Ariel and her dad. I will blame it on the nostalgia.
4 out of 5 stars just for the musical performances alone.
When I first heard a live-action version was in the works, my initial response was tepid, "That's nice." Only when I heard a person of color would play Ariel was my curiosity really piqued. As a minority, when many asked, "Why?", I thought, "Why not?" I was very moved when I saw the videos of young Black girls reacting excitedly to the first trailer when they discovered Ariel looked like them, further answering the many still asking "Why?" with "This. This is why."
If you've seen the animated version, then you know the gist of the story - young mermaid Ariel, played beautifully by Halle Bailey, is fascinated by the world above the water and collects all the human thingamabobs that litter the sea floor. She rebels against her father, King Triton, the handsome Javier Bardem, by giving in to her curiosity and ends up rescuing the merchant Prince Eric from drowning when the ship he's sailing is caught in a treacherous storm. Ariel is instantly smitten and Prince Eric, played by the perfectly-cast Jonah Hauer-King, is equally obsessed with the voice he heard as he was revived by Ariel’s siren song.
While obviously geared towards a younger audience, I found much to love about this movie. Jodi Benson’s original version will always be perfection, but Halle Bailey’s emotional rendition of “Part of Your World”, coupled with her luminous and expressive face, was just phenomenal. I had to temper my applause after her performance while a few appreciative “Whooo!” sounded through the audience. Melissa McCarthy’s Ursula and her iconic “Poor Unfortunate Souls” was definitely a highlight. Daveed Diggs as Sebastian (also inspired casting) and Awkwafina as Scuttle need their own spinoff. They’re hilarious together.
Alan Menken’s classic songs from the original were given new life by McCarthy, Bailey, and Diggs, and Lin Manuel Miranda’s signature touch is easily identifiable in the new ballads for Ariel and Prince Eric, and a Hamilton-style rap by Awkwafina and Diggs.
I appreciated the parallel stories with the prince just as curious about the world beyond his island as Ariel is about the world beyond her ocean, both bound by duty to their parents and their people, while yearning to explore the great “out there”. In all my Disney and Pixar movie-watching experiences, it has consistently been Pixar movies that get me emotionally compromised, so I was a bit surprised to find myself reaching for a napkin at the end of this movie, after a scene between Ariel and her dad. I will blame it on the nostalgia.
4 out of 5 stars just for the musical performances alone.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
Not Quite Ready
I saw this movie in the cinema back when it came out in March earlier this year and I honestly didn't feel ready to review it after a single viewing because of all of the references etc that there was to take in. After watching the movie a couple more times and watching a bunch of Easter Egg videos on Youtube, I feel more equipped to discuss the film.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
It has felt like a long wait to get to this film, there was a lot of talk when Midway was coming out so I was very glad it finally arrived.
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Hardcore Henry (2016) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017 (Updated Oct 24, 2017)
An Original Thrill
The trailers for this movie had me intrigued from the get go, then the reviews were released and they just made me want to see this movie even more, so going in my hype level was pretty high and Hardcore Henry still managed to exceed my expectations. I mean, its not going to win any Oscars, but if you are looking for a non stop over the top action thrill ride, then wade right in. There is no holds barred here, this is proper action done in a unique way. The method of shooting isn’t perfect, it uses a great deal of shaky cam, so much so that it ends up obscuring some of the fast paced fight scenes and stunt choreography, which is a shame as the stunts are really spectacular and they only ramp up as the movie progresses. I loved Sharlto Copley in District 9, but he hasn’t wowed me since then, until I saw his performance in this movie. This performance really shows how diverse he is and there is a certain musical number involving him that is definitely one of the highlights of the movie, but I won’t spoil it here. In fact I can’t really say anything about his character without spoiling him other than his name is Jimmy and he is awesome.
The villain in this movie is ripped straight out of a cheesy video game, but he is kind of so bad that he’s good. He looks like the Targaryan brother from Game Of Thrones, he sounds like someone doing a bad John Malkovich impression and he has telekinesis powers to boot. His powers are never explained, but he is basically a jedi without a lightsabre from an 80’s electronic music video. Actually, comparing this movie to a video game is probably the most accurate way to describe it. Think a modern sci fi game that plays like classic Doom and you aren’t far off, which in my opinion is one of the most epic concepts ever conceived. However the concept is only the starting blocks of a project like this one, the execution has to be great as well to stop the movie from only ever being remembered as a throwaway neat idea. Thankfully the execution is effective here both figuratively and literally. This is one of they movies where you feel like a kid again while you watch it and it is glorious to experience from start to finish. The special effects are actually pretty good for what is presumably a pretty low budget film, over the top and fantastically ridiculous, but they add to the madness of the piece and they are a feast for the eyes. The soundtrack is pretty spot on too, it perfectly melds with the insane, fast paced, badass tone that the filmmakers were aiming for and helps to keep that high octane feel going for the duration of the flick.
Hardcore Henry is not a perfect movie by any stretch, but for what it is it delivers in a big way. It is highly entertaining and whether you enjoy this style of movie or not, it is hard to take your eyes off of the screen for the hour and a half that it is on for, this movie is going to grip you and take you for a high stakes mental ride whether you like it or not. If you are into over the top action and ridiculous stunts and set pieces, then I could not recommend this movie more.
The villain in this movie is ripped straight out of a cheesy video game, but he is kind of so bad that he’s good. He looks like the Targaryan brother from Game Of Thrones, he sounds like someone doing a bad John Malkovich impression and he has telekinesis powers to boot. His powers are never explained, but he is basically a jedi without a lightsabre from an 80’s electronic music video. Actually, comparing this movie to a video game is probably the most accurate way to describe it. Think a modern sci fi game that plays like classic Doom and you aren’t far off, which in my opinion is one of the most epic concepts ever conceived. However the concept is only the starting blocks of a project like this one, the execution has to be great as well to stop the movie from only ever being remembered as a throwaway neat idea. Thankfully the execution is effective here both figuratively and literally. This is one of they movies where you feel like a kid again while you watch it and it is glorious to experience from start to finish. The special effects are actually pretty good for what is presumably a pretty low budget film, over the top and fantastically ridiculous, but they add to the madness of the piece and they are a feast for the eyes. The soundtrack is pretty spot on too, it perfectly melds with the insane, fast paced, badass tone that the filmmakers were aiming for and helps to keep that high octane feel going for the duration of the flick.
Hardcore Henry is not a perfect movie by any stretch, but for what it is it delivers in a big way. It is highly entertaining and whether you enjoy this style of movie or not, it is hard to take your eyes off of the screen for the hour and a half that it is on for, this movie is going to grip you and take you for a high stakes mental ride whether you like it or not. If you are into over the top action and ridiculous stunts and set pieces, then I could not recommend this movie more.
mostlyinpyjamas (13 KP) rated Geekerella (Once Upon a Con #1) in Books
Nov 28, 2017
Fairytale meets fandom.
The blurb: ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN ONCE UPON A CON. When geek girl Elle Wittimer sees a cosplay contest sponsored by the producers of Starfield she has to enter.
First prize is an invitation to the Excelsicon Cosplay Ball and a meet-and-greet with the actor slated to play Federation Prince Carmindor in the reboot.
Elle’s been scraping together tips from her gig at the Magic Pumpkin food truck behind her stepmothers back, and winning this contest could be her ticket out once and for all. Not to mention a fan girls dream come true.
Teen actor Darien Freeman is less than thrilled about this year’s Excelsicon. He used to live for conventions, but know they’re nothing but jaw-aching photo sessions and awkward meet-and-greets.
Playing Federation Prince Carmindor is all he’s ever wanted, but the die-hard Starfield fandom has already dismissed him as just another heartthrob.
As Excelsicon draws near, closet nerd Darien feels more and more like a fake – until he meets a girl who shows him otherwise.
Part romance, part love letter to nerd culture, and all totally adorbs, GEEKERELLA is a fairy tale for anyone who believes in the magic of fandom. ~~
Fairytale meets fandom in this modern day retelling of Cinderella.
I am always here for a new take on a well loved story, and Ashley Poston has delivered a faithful to the original story that also makes for a good tale on its own right.
I have to start by saying look at that cover! When I saw it on the shelf in Waterstones *other bookshops are available* I knew I had to buy it.
I love the modern versions of the well known characters, Elle is a Starfield nerd. Her love of the classic tv show comes from her parents, who originally founded the Starfield convention.
Catherine, the stepmother, and the stepsisters, Chloe and Cal are perfectly spiteful as overwork and under appreciate Elle.
The prince in this version is Darien, a young Hollywood golden boy with insured abs, while the fairy godmother role is filled by Sage, the punk wannabe-fashion-designer. I love Sage!
There’s also a canine sidekick, Franco, a.k.a Frank the tank, any story that includes a very good boy has the makings of a winner for me.
Ashley Poston gives a nod to the coach from the original story with The magic pumpkin, Sage’s vegan food van and the ending is perfect with the ball and even the glass shoe.
Obviously we all know how Cinderella goes but Ashley Poston gets us to the end via a geek-tastic tale of fandoms, fan blogs, cosplay conventions and the movie making world.
The way that Elle and Darien begin to get to know each other via text makes for a sweet romance, each not knowing who the other is – Darien, who Elle doesn’t believe will make a good Carmindor, and Elle, being rebelgunner the blogger who slated Darien – I’ve seen some reviews saying it’s not realistic that they fall for each other via text, and so quickly, but it does happen, and anyway, come on! This is Cinderella, and in the original her and the prince fall in love after just a dance.
Geekerella is such a heartwarming story, it’s not often I read a book again, but this is one I’ll definitely turn to when I need cheering up.
I’m giving Geekerella 5/5 stars and I can’t wait to read more of Ashley Poston’s work. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
First prize is an invitation to the Excelsicon Cosplay Ball and a meet-and-greet with the actor slated to play Federation Prince Carmindor in the reboot.
Elle’s been scraping together tips from her gig at the Magic Pumpkin food truck behind her stepmothers back, and winning this contest could be her ticket out once and for all. Not to mention a fan girls dream come true.
Teen actor Darien Freeman is less than thrilled about this year’s Excelsicon. He used to live for conventions, but know they’re nothing but jaw-aching photo sessions and awkward meet-and-greets.
Playing Federation Prince Carmindor is all he’s ever wanted, but the die-hard Starfield fandom has already dismissed him as just another heartthrob.
As Excelsicon draws near, closet nerd Darien feels more and more like a fake – until he meets a girl who shows him otherwise.
Part romance, part love letter to nerd culture, and all totally adorbs, GEEKERELLA is a fairy tale for anyone who believes in the magic of fandom. ~~
Fairytale meets fandom in this modern day retelling of Cinderella.
I am always here for a new take on a well loved story, and Ashley Poston has delivered a faithful to the original story that also makes for a good tale on its own right.
I have to start by saying look at that cover! When I saw it on the shelf in Waterstones *other bookshops are available* I knew I had to buy it.
I love the modern versions of the well known characters, Elle is a Starfield nerd. Her love of the classic tv show comes from her parents, who originally founded the Starfield convention.
Catherine, the stepmother, and the stepsisters, Chloe and Cal are perfectly spiteful as overwork and under appreciate Elle.
The prince in this version is Darien, a young Hollywood golden boy with insured abs, while the fairy godmother role is filled by Sage, the punk wannabe-fashion-designer. I love Sage!
There’s also a canine sidekick, Franco, a.k.a Frank the tank, any story that includes a very good boy has the makings of a winner for me.
Ashley Poston gives a nod to the coach from the original story with The magic pumpkin, Sage’s vegan food van and the ending is perfect with the ball and even the glass shoe.
Obviously we all know how Cinderella goes but Ashley Poston gets us to the end via a geek-tastic tale of fandoms, fan blogs, cosplay conventions and the movie making world.
The way that Elle and Darien begin to get to know each other via text makes for a sweet romance, each not knowing who the other is – Darien, who Elle doesn’t believe will make a good Carmindor, and Elle, being rebelgunner the blogger who slated Darien – I’ve seen some reviews saying it’s not realistic that they fall for each other via text, and so quickly, but it does happen, and anyway, come on! This is Cinderella, and in the original her and the prince fall in love after just a dance.
Geekerella is such a heartwarming story, it’s not often I read a book again, but this is one I’ll definitely turn to when I need cheering up.
I’m giving Geekerella 5/5 stars and I can’t wait to read more of Ashley Poston’s work. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Harshini (25 KP) rated Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters (2013) in Movies
Jan 4, 2018 (Updated Jan 13, 2018)
Annabeth's hair and eye colour matched the books (1 more)
"Stop walking on my roof"
Some scenes that should have been in were cut (4 more)
Some scenes were in that shouldn't have been
Some scenes were in that weren't even a part of the book they were producing
The author of the books hates the movies
The initial scene is of something that is never mentioned in the books - and I'm still kind of confused as to what the actors' characters are meant to be doing
Big Fan of the Books, Not So Much of the Movies
Contains spoilers, click to show
I had a huge issue with the first movie as is, so this may end up being a rant.
I have been a massive fan of the books for about 9 years now and can say with a fair amount of certainty that this movie does not echo its book source. Yes, they had the same characters (for the most part), but the characters being from the book does not mean that it is the movie of the book. It means that the book gave inspiration. Sure, some events that were in the book were in the movie - such as Tyson's slip with the winds, or Tyson's story at all - but some fairly important scenes were not to be seen in the movie - such as (what should have been the initial scene) the dodgeball game that reveals Tyson's immunity to fire, Siren Bay, or Circe. Not to mention the events that were changed in the movie - such as the fact that Polyphemus' island became a fairground instead of a lush paradisal island with man-eating sheep, or that the ship Clarisse is commandeering doesn't end up in Charybdis' stomach and that they avoid the two monsters all together. I'm not even counting the scenes that the director placed in this movie that should have come much later - like Percy's fight with Kronos, which shouldn't have taken place until the absolute last movie. When I saw the first movie, I said something about the way it was made, and I'll say it again: it's like the director hired someone to read the book and tell him what happened, the person read all the books and then decided to pick and choose their favourite parts and create an absolute mess of the books. I mean, it's a sign if the author of said books is the person who hates the movies the most.
That being said, I can attest to there being some good things about the movie. Alexandra Daddario (who plays Annabeth Chase, daughter of Athena) did end up changing her hair and eye colour in the movie to the described blonde hair and grey eyes (though the eyes do look very fake). I am not sure whether or not this was just because so many fans were offended by her brown hair and eyes in the first movie (which was also terrible), but I am glad that it got changed to be more in-tune with the source material. Above all, I can say that there are about five seconds of this movie that I love - and that I will stomach the surrounding minute for - and that is when Luke Castellan tells Percy to 'stop walking on [his] roof'. It is by far the funniest part of the entire movie. However, I won't lie and say I'm not glad that the series isn't going to continue to be shown on the silver screen.
I have been a massive fan of the books for about 9 years now and can say with a fair amount of certainty that this movie does not echo its book source. Yes, they had the same characters (for the most part), but the characters being from the book does not mean that it is the movie of the book. It means that the book gave inspiration. Sure, some events that were in the book were in the movie - such as Tyson's slip with the winds, or Tyson's story at all - but some fairly important scenes were not to be seen in the movie - such as (what should have been the initial scene) the dodgeball game that reveals Tyson's immunity to fire, Siren Bay, or Circe. Not to mention the events that were changed in the movie - such as the fact that Polyphemus' island became a fairground instead of a lush paradisal island with man-eating sheep, or that the ship Clarisse is commandeering doesn't end up in Charybdis' stomach and that they avoid the two monsters all together. I'm not even counting the scenes that the director placed in this movie that should have come much later - like Percy's fight with Kronos, which shouldn't have taken place until the absolute last movie. When I saw the first movie, I said something about the way it was made, and I'll say it again: it's like the director hired someone to read the book and tell him what happened, the person read all the books and then decided to pick and choose their favourite parts and create an absolute mess of the books. I mean, it's a sign if the author of said books is the person who hates the movies the most.
That being said, I can attest to there being some good things about the movie. Alexandra Daddario (who plays Annabeth Chase, daughter of Athena) did end up changing her hair and eye colour in the movie to the described blonde hair and grey eyes (though the eyes do look very fake). I am not sure whether or not this was just because so many fans were offended by her brown hair and eyes in the first movie (which was also terrible), but I am glad that it got changed to be more in-tune with the source material. Above all, I can say that there are about five seconds of this movie that I love - and that I will stomach the surrounding minute for - and that is when Luke Castellan tells Percy to 'stop walking on [his] roof'. It is by far the funniest part of the entire movie. However, I won't lie and say I'm not glad that the series isn't going to continue to be shown on the silver screen.