Search
Pantheon: jewel matching puzzle
Games and Entertainment
App
Pantheon is a mysterious and hidden temple in the heart of India. It holds the secrets of ancient...
Gareth von Kallenbach (626 KP) rated Free State of Jones (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
When we look at the Civil War period, we are often confronted with numbers: the numbers of the dead, the numbers of those fighting, the pay, the amount of bullets and munitions used. One thing we rarely discuss is depth with regard to the people and circumstances surrounding the war. We are concerned with particular battles and what major leaders were victorious or fell. We, either through school or the collective of movies created about the period, do not get to see the people for who they are and the variables surrounding their existence during this period. We do not have the ability to comprehend how the war affected them in losing their property, loved ones, or even how they face starvation and violence. We don’t get the chance to see slaves other than a myopic, generalized representation that doesn’t show us how they were able to survive in the face of danger multiple sides. The Free State of Jones corrects many of the mistakes and missed opportunities of previous films, of which there are many, that deal with slavery, the Civil War, the Reconstruction Era, and the South.
In The Free State of Jones, Matthew McConaughey plays Newt Knight a southerner who begins to see the hypocrisy of the Civil War and deserts from the Confederate Military. Upon his return he seeks to support his relatives and neighbors who are being taken advantage of by the Confederacy. His movement grows to where he and an army of men and women of different backgrounds begin fighting back against the Confederacy in the attempt to assert their autonomy and sovereignty.
The film is beautifully shot and allows for the display of serenity during all of the chaos that is shown throughout. One strength that director Gary Ross demonstrates is his ability to demonstrate that there were many layers to the War. Slavery is the central theme and he goes beyond this to show how much race played into the war and its lasting effect that we are still dealing with today. He points out through the film that we had a moment to be a transformative nation, but there were so many people who wanted to the status quo to remain that they prevented any and all social progress that seemed to threaten their perceived social standing. With respect to slavery, Free State gives voices to slaves and Freedmen during the period rather than having them on the periphery or invisible all together. The film offers an authenticity and depth that many films of this period are fearful or reluctant to engage in. There is warfare, there is violence, there is struggle, but the film offers more. It shows humanity. It demonstrates how people recognized what was wrong and took a stand. It also does not play with the history in order to have issues romanticized. It is honest in its application and for some, that will not sit well.
In The Free State of Jones, Matthew McConaughey plays Newt Knight a southerner who begins to see the hypocrisy of the Civil War and deserts from the Confederate Military. Upon his return he seeks to support his relatives and neighbors who are being taken advantage of by the Confederacy. His movement grows to where he and an army of men and women of different backgrounds begin fighting back against the Confederacy in the attempt to assert their autonomy and sovereignty.
The film is beautifully shot and allows for the display of serenity during all of the chaos that is shown throughout. One strength that director Gary Ross demonstrates is his ability to demonstrate that there were many layers to the War. Slavery is the central theme and he goes beyond this to show how much race played into the war and its lasting effect that we are still dealing with today. He points out through the film that we had a moment to be a transformative nation, but there were so many people who wanted to the status quo to remain that they prevented any and all social progress that seemed to threaten their perceived social standing. With respect to slavery, Free State gives voices to slaves and Freedmen during the period rather than having them on the periphery or invisible all together. The film offers an authenticity and depth that many films of this period are fearful or reluctant to engage in. There is warfare, there is violence, there is struggle, but the film offers more. It shows humanity. It demonstrates how people recognized what was wrong and took a stand. It also does not play with the history in order to have issues romanticized. It is honest in its application and for some, that will not sit well.
Colorgram Adult coloring book
Entertainment, Book and Stickers
App
First ever Playback Coloring app to fade away stress and anxiety with a relaxing coloring...
BrainWave: 35 Binaural Series™
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
35 Multi-Stage Binaural Programs Combined with Included Ambient Music, Nature Sounds, or your own...
Emma @ The Movies (1435 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
I checked up on the BBFC about language allowed in the different rated films. A 15 may have frequent strong language, "the strongest terms may be acceptable if justified by the context", it also says that "aggressive or repeated use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable."
Language has never really been something to bother me unless it's used in a malicious way, and even then the "standard" words still don't have much of an effect, but I had reports back from friends that there was a lot to deal with in it... so I decided to try and keep count. I can't guarantee that I caught them all (or that I managed to add them up properly) but I think the count for f*** was 56 and c*** was 21, I'm fairly certain that half of C was saved specifically for Colin Farrell in one scene.
Mickey is looking to get out of the drug business, he's built a thriving empire, well hidden, well connected, and now he just needs to find an interested party to take it all off his hands. After a couple of meetings one of Mickey's labs takes a hit, it can't be a coincidence. Luckily there's a lead, but it might be a bit more complicated than they'd hoped.
I had some fun watching this but I don't feel like it was quite what I'd been hoping for. There were some bits that I frustrating and some that were just plain annoying. The highlight for me was the relatively small part of Colin Farrell as Coach. When we first meet him it's a great scene and gets across the sort of man he is. A significant portion of the swearing is saved especially for him and it sits quite easily with his parts of the script.
Ask yourselves this, was this sort of role suited to Henry Golding? I'm not sure. In the trailer he looked a little on the cartoonish side and that didn't work for me, sadly the full performance didn't work for me either. At moments I was almost on board, it felt believable and a comfortable bit of acting, but then the over the top characteristics would come back and I'd be lost again.
Matthew McConaughey is a very good actor, I still think that after seeing Serenity, and this is definitely a role he took in his stride. I thought it suited him well and he was very comfortable with everything from love to hate. Good job Mr M.
*deep sigh* Hugh Grant. Fletcher is quite a character and there's no denying that Grant filled out the role well, his happy-go-lucky demeanour combined with the strange hybrid accent began to grate just a little, it was at least broken up by the rest of the story... some days you just don't need peppy, you know? The main issue I had with Fletcher is the strand of storyline that he brought that capped either end of the film, it didn't quite make sense to me and felt entirely dispensable, its only purpose seemed to be getting viewers to use the word "meta" when talking about it.
I don't know how I feel about the 18 rating here. The violence definitely could have had it at a 15 and while the language was all "okay" and jokey in its use it wasn't really needed, I imagine that's where the 18 came from. My screening was very busy, and lots of people were telling me the same thing about theirs too, I think this plugged a gap in cinema offerings and while I'm sure it could easily have been toned down to fit a 15 I'm not sure that would have been much of a boost to it.
While there was a lot that was enjoyable about The Gentlemen (the only thing I excluded from the review that I loved was the music video in the middle) I didn't come out with a desire to see it again instantly. If it was on I'd probably watch it but I wasn't hyped enough for this to be an instant win.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-gentlemen-movie-review.html
Language has never really been something to bother me unless it's used in a malicious way, and even then the "standard" words still don't have much of an effect, but I had reports back from friends that there was a lot to deal with in it... so I decided to try and keep count. I can't guarantee that I caught them all (or that I managed to add them up properly) but I think the count for f*** was 56 and c*** was 21, I'm fairly certain that half of C was saved specifically for Colin Farrell in one scene.
Mickey is looking to get out of the drug business, he's built a thriving empire, well hidden, well connected, and now he just needs to find an interested party to take it all off his hands. After a couple of meetings one of Mickey's labs takes a hit, it can't be a coincidence. Luckily there's a lead, but it might be a bit more complicated than they'd hoped.
I had some fun watching this but I don't feel like it was quite what I'd been hoping for. There were some bits that I frustrating and some that were just plain annoying. The highlight for me was the relatively small part of Colin Farrell as Coach. When we first meet him it's a great scene and gets across the sort of man he is. A significant portion of the swearing is saved especially for him and it sits quite easily with his parts of the script.
Ask yourselves this, was this sort of role suited to Henry Golding? I'm not sure. In the trailer he looked a little on the cartoonish side and that didn't work for me, sadly the full performance didn't work for me either. At moments I was almost on board, it felt believable and a comfortable bit of acting, but then the over the top characteristics would come back and I'd be lost again.
Matthew McConaughey is a very good actor, I still think that after seeing Serenity, and this is definitely a role he took in his stride. I thought it suited him well and he was very comfortable with everything from love to hate. Good job Mr M.
*deep sigh* Hugh Grant. Fletcher is quite a character and there's no denying that Grant filled out the role well, his happy-go-lucky demeanour combined with the strange hybrid accent began to grate just a little, it was at least broken up by the rest of the story... some days you just don't need peppy, you know? The main issue I had with Fletcher is the strand of storyline that he brought that capped either end of the film, it didn't quite make sense to me and felt entirely dispensable, its only purpose seemed to be getting viewers to use the word "meta" when talking about it.
I don't know how I feel about the 18 rating here. The violence definitely could have had it at a 15 and while the language was all "okay" and jokey in its use it wasn't really needed, I imagine that's where the 18 came from. My screening was very busy, and lots of people were telling me the same thing about theirs too, I think this plugged a gap in cinema offerings and while I'm sure it could easily have been toned down to fit a 15 I'm not sure that would have been much of a boost to it.
While there was a lot that was enjoyable about The Gentlemen (the only thing I excluded from the review that I loved was the music video in the middle) I didn't come out with a desire to see it again instantly. If it was on I'd probably watch it but I wasn't hyped enough for this to be an instant win.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-gentlemen-movie-review.html
Purple Phoenix Games (1253 KP) rated Firefly: Shiny Dice in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
One of the best parts of the board gaming experience is finding a fun group of people with whom to play! Sometimes, though, coordinating a game night is easier said than done. We all must occasionally forego the group experience and face the world as the Lonely Only. But fear not! The world of solo-play is a vast and exciting realm! What follows is a chronicle of my journey into the solo-playing world – notes on gameplay, mechanics, rules, difficulty, and overall experience with solo variations of commonly multiplayer games! I hope this will provide some insight as you continue to grow your collection, or explore your already owned games!
I really like Firefly. So when Travis told me he had Firefly: Shiny Dice, and was looking to get rid of it, I jumped on the chance to get my hands on something Firefly! I’d never played the game and had never even heard of it either. Having played it now, though, I can see why Travis wanted to off-load it on someone else.
In Firefly: Shiny Dice, over the course of three rounds, players are rolling dice to assemble a crew, complete missions, and defeat bad guys. All of the main characters of the show are represented by different die faces, each with a special power. Use those powers to help defeat bad guys and earn VPs on your turn each round! The player at the end of the game with the most points is the winner. Firefly: Shiny Dice is played the same way, regardless of player count – in solo play, you are still trying to amass the most points possible over three rounds.
At it’s core, Firefly: Shiny Dice is a dice-rolling game. And that’s where the simplicity ends. This game is bogged down an ambiguously confusing rulebook, complicated turn steps, and just way too much text overall. When I first got this game, I was psyched to play. I sat down, opened up the rulebook, read through it at least 3 times, and then put the game away. I was so confused by what I had read, I couldn’t even bring myself to try it at first. There is a lot of ambiguity in the rulebook that caused a lot of confusion and frustration for me. For example, the brown dice are Outlaw characters and the white dice are Passenger characters, but the rulebook and player aids use “Crew Dice” most of the time – so are they all Crew Dice, or just the Outlaws since, in the show, those are the characters who actually are the crew on Serenity? Are Passengers considered Crew? The same ambiguity goes for Mission Cards – if you draw one that you cannot complete, is it just discarded? Then what’s the point of the Mission Card? How about if you draw one and don’t want to complete it? Are you required to complete it if you can? Or can you choose to ignore it to negate the Mission Keyword? I felt like after I read the rulebook, I actually had more questions than before I started.
Regarding turn order, there is just way too much going on for me. There are 4 steps each turn, and some steps have several ‘phases.’ First you roll your dice, and then depending on what you rolled maybe you can re-roll some, and then you have to check to see if you got any bonuses/penalties after your re-roll, but then you stop and draw a Mission Card and possibly resolve it (?), and now you go and deal 1 damage to a foe but only if the current Mission says ‘Shiny,’ and then the foe dice resolve their effects, and now you can use your dice and character powers to fight the foes, and then depending on how many dice you have left/the Mission Keyword from your card this turn, you can decide to push your luck and take another turn immediately or just end your turn now. Whew. There are just way too many unnecessary steps, in my opinion. All you should need to do is to roll/re-roll your dice, resolve foe effects, and fight the foes. The Missions and die bonuses/penalties feel extraneous to me, and result in clunky gameplay.
In theory, this should be a cool game. In reality, it’s just frustrating. To me it feels like every single small idea made it into the end-game, but they were not executed well enough to justify including them. This game is way too wordy and ambiguous to make sense, and even though I keep the rulebook on hand every time I play, I feel like it doesn’t really help me at all. I think a more pared down/edited version of this game could be a hit.
As a fan of Firefly, I want to like this game. I really do. But I don’t. I think it is too complicated and far too confusing for what it is supposed to be, which is a relatively light dice-rolling game. Firefly: Shiny Dice is not on my short-list of games to play, nor is it on my long-list (is that a thing?). It’s kind of just in my collection at this point, though I don’t know if it’ll stay here for long.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/solo-chronicles-firefly-shiny-dice/
I really like Firefly. So when Travis told me he had Firefly: Shiny Dice, and was looking to get rid of it, I jumped on the chance to get my hands on something Firefly! I’d never played the game and had never even heard of it either. Having played it now, though, I can see why Travis wanted to off-load it on someone else.
In Firefly: Shiny Dice, over the course of three rounds, players are rolling dice to assemble a crew, complete missions, and defeat bad guys. All of the main characters of the show are represented by different die faces, each with a special power. Use those powers to help defeat bad guys and earn VPs on your turn each round! The player at the end of the game with the most points is the winner. Firefly: Shiny Dice is played the same way, regardless of player count – in solo play, you are still trying to amass the most points possible over three rounds.
At it’s core, Firefly: Shiny Dice is a dice-rolling game. And that’s where the simplicity ends. This game is bogged down an ambiguously confusing rulebook, complicated turn steps, and just way too much text overall. When I first got this game, I was psyched to play. I sat down, opened up the rulebook, read through it at least 3 times, and then put the game away. I was so confused by what I had read, I couldn’t even bring myself to try it at first. There is a lot of ambiguity in the rulebook that caused a lot of confusion and frustration for me. For example, the brown dice are Outlaw characters and the white dice are Passenger characters, but the rulebook and player aids use “Crew Dice” most of the time – so are they all Crew Dice, or just the Outlaws since, in the show, those are the characters who actually are the crew on Serenity? Are Passengers considered Crew? The same ambiguity goes for Mission Cards – if you draw one that you cannot complete, is it just discarded? Then what’s the point of the Mission Card? How about if you draw one and don’t want to complete it? Are you required to complete it if you can? Or can you choose to ignore it to negate the Mission Keyword? I felt like after I read the rulebook, I actually had more questions than before I started.
Regarding turn order, there is just way too much going on for me. There are 4 steps each turn, and some steps have several ‘phases.’ First you roll your dice, and then depending on what you rolled maybe you can re-roll some, and then you have to check to see if you got any bonuses/penalties after your re-roll, but then you stop and draw a Mission Card and possibly resolve it (?), and now you go and deal 1 damage to a foe but only if the current Mission says ‘Shiny,’ and then the foe dice resolve their effects, and now you can use your dice and character powers to fight the foes, and then depending on how many dice you have left/the Mission Keyword from your card this turn, you can decide to push your luck and take another turn immediately or just end your turn now. Whew. There are just way too many unnecessary steps, in my opinion. All you should need to do is to roll/re-roll your dice, resolve foe effects, and fight the foes. The Missions and die bonuses/penalties feel extraneous to me, and result in clunky gameplay.
In theory, this should be a cool game. In reality, it’s just frustrating. To me it feels like every single small idea made it into the end-game, but they were not executed well enough to justify including them. This game is way too wordy and ambiguous to make sense, and even though I keep the rulebook on hand every time I play, I feel like it doesn’t really help me at all. I think a more pared down/edited version of this game could be a hit.
As a fan of Firefly, I want to like this game. I really do. But I don’t. I think it is too complicated and far too confusing for what it is supposed to be, which is a relatively light dice-rolling game. Firefly: Shiny Dice is not on my short-list of games to play, nor is it on my long-list (is that a thing?). It’s kind of just in my collection at this point, though I don’t know if it’ll stay here for long.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/solo-chronicles-firefly-shiny-dice/
Gareth von Kallenbach (626 KP) rated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was going to be no easy feat. The series not only made incredible amounts of cash at the box office worldwide, but also garnered an Academy award for best picture for the final film in the series. In the years since the trilogy, writer-director-producer Peter Jackson has not overwhelmed at the box office. His big-budget remake of “King Kong” performed below expectations and the high-profile collapse of the “Halo” movie to which he was attached, as well as the underwhelming box office of “The Lovely Bones” made many people question if Jackson had peaked and was better suited for the lower budgeted independent films that first gave him his start.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
Emma @ The Movies (1435 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Yes, I'm a scared cat and bailed out on the Unlimited Screening of this. Those of you on Twitter know that I prefer my horrors to be brightly lit with ample opportunity to scream at the idiots on the screen who are quite clearly going to get themselves killed. That being said, I did decide to see it after reading some general comments after the screening. I believe the phrase I used was "Suck it up, Emma. You can do this."
Pet Sematary is obviously a remake but as I understand it they've made a fair few tweaks to give viewers something a bit different. The premise is still the same though.
After the Creeds move into their new home they discover that the woods on their property are home to a pet cemetery that has quite a local tradition. When their cat, Church, dies on the road outside their house the neighbour overs to help Louis find a spot to bury him. Jud realises that Ellie will be devastated at the loss and leads Louis out to a remote and unusual spot to bury Church. What he doesn't tell him is that Church won't stay buried for long.
Jason Clarke is getting some great screen time this year what with The Aftermath and Serenity (which I hope to catch sometime soon). I liked how he managed to play the sceptic in this, he's a man of science which has a set of rules but the longer he spends in their new surrounds the more he becomes changed by them. He's also a great contrast with his wife and watching them trying to explain death to their daughter was captured in a very interesting way.
Amy Seimetz as Rachel felt a little underwhelming as a character, the backstory she has is odd on its own but having it pop up sporadically through the film felt confusing. I don't know whether it's the same storyline as was in the book but something a little less bizarre felt like it would have worked better and left you with less unanswered questions.
John Lithgow is always a favourite of mine and this performance was no exception. Sort of like the old man shovelling snow in Home Alone he comes across as scary until you realise he's not so bad after all. I'm intrigued by his character though, Jud should surely be much less friendly and changed because of his experiences with the woods, and yet he's fairly normal. The only thing that I was a little disappointed with was that his backstory was very obvious... and to be honest given all the trouble he's had you'd think he'd be a little more cautious.
Our little leading lady certainly has a flair for the demonic and I actually found her to be a much better offering after her unfortunate incident. From what I understand it's her little brother that dies in the original, but in my head I can't see that working very well. They do try and bring him into the story with a slightly supernatural ability to see the dead but it felt a little forced and perhaps it would have been better to just bypass it completely.
If you read my reviews every so often I'm sure you're aware of my dislike for cameras that move erratically. I was aware that we felt to be constantly on the move and it made for a challenging watch. Pet Sematary also featured my least favourite of all the shots, the overhead pan that sets off my motion sickness. Opening the film with a sweeping shot of the forest nearly had me passed out on the floor, and to my joy we also get a brief reprise of this towards the end.
Apart from the camera work that wasn't to my liking there wasn't a lot that I found out of place with the production itself apart from one moment that jumped out at me. When that monstrous little bastard of a cat lured Ellie out into the road we get what is a surprisingly well thought out scene, I was onboard and engrossed and then there were some terrible digital effects involving the truck that stuck out like a sore thumb.
Stephen King and I have a very patchy history with adaptations. I often feel like he writes a fantastic story and then realises he hasn't worked out how to end it and just goe "Boom! Aliens!" I'm looking hard at Under The Dome here, nearly 40 hours of my life... for aliens! Needless to say I was quite pleased that there was some "reasonable" explanation for everything that was happening. Not a single alien in sight and the ending wrapped with a nice ominous vibe that made me glad they hadn't gone with a happily ever after scenario.
Apart from the camera work and the cheap ass jumping scares this wasn't such a bad film. If you ignore the things that don't make sense, like why are parents letting their creepy children give their dead pets a procession through another person's property... or why does the "pet sematary" actually have nothing to do with the resurrections... or why do they walk through about five miles of Star Wars-esque forest and swamp to a random mountain to do the ritual... yeah, if you ignore those things it isn't too bad.
What you should do
It's not a bad horror to watch and if you aren't a big ol' chicken like me then you might want to see it on the big screen.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
What I would like is something very specific, like genie wish specific, I want Church... but I want him in his curly looking death state... without the death. No smell, no blood, no guts, no demonic hell beast, just the regular cat type of hell beast.
Pet Sematary is obviously a remake but as I understand it they've made a fair few tweaks to give viewers something a bit different. The premise is still the same though.
After the Creeds move into their new home they discover that the woods on their property are home to a pet cemetery that has quite a local tradition. When their cat, Church, dies on the road outside their house the neighbour overs to help Louis find a spot to bury him. Jud realises that Ellie will be devastated at the loss and leads Louis out to a remote and unusual spot to bury Church. What he doesn't tell him is that Church won't stay buried for long.
Jason Clarke is getting some great screen time this year what with The Aftermath and Serenity (which I hope to catch sometime soon). I liked how he managed to play the sceptic in this, he's a man of science which has a set of rules but the longer he spends in their new surrounds the more he becomes changed by them. He's also a great contrast with his wife and watching them trying to explain death to their daughter was captured in a very interesting way.
Amy Seimetz as Rachel felt a little underwhelming as a character, the backstory she has is odd on its own but having it pop up sporadically through the film felt confusing. I don't know whether it's the same storyline as was in the book but something a little less bizarre felt like it would have worked better and left you with less unanswered questions.
John Lithgow is always a favourite of mine and this performance was no exception. Sort of like the old man shovelling snow in Home Alone he comes across as scary until you realise he's not so bad after all. I'm intrigued by his character though, Jud should surely be much less friendly and changed because of his experiences with the woods, and yet he's fairly normal. The only thing that I was a little disappointed with was that his backstory was very obvious... and to be honest given all the trouble he's had you'd think he'd be a little more cautious.
Our little leading lady certainly has a flair for the demonic and I actually found her to be a much better offering after her unfortunate incident. From what I understand it's her little brother that dies in the original, but in my head I can't see that working very well. They do try and bring him into the story with a slightly supernatural ability to see the dead but it felt a little forced and perhaps it would have been better to just bypass it completely.
If you read my reviews every so often I'm sure you're aware of my dislike for cameras that move erratically. I was aware that we felt to be constantly on the move and it made for a challenging watch. Pet Sematary also featured my least favourite of all the shots, the overhead pan that sets off my motion sickness. Opening the film with a sweeping shot of the forest nearly had me passed out on the floor, and to my joy we also get a brief reprise of this towards the end.
Apart from the camera work that wasn't to my liking there wasn't a lot that I found out of place with the production itself apart from one moment that jumped out at me. When that monstrous little bastard of a cat lured Ellie out into the road we get what is a surprisingly well thought out scene, I was onboard and engrossed and then there were some terrible digital effects involving the truck that stuck out like a sore thumb.
Stephen King and I have a very patchy history with adaptations. I often feel like he writes a fantastic story and then realises he hasn't worked out how to end it and just goe "Boom! Aliens!" I'm looking hard at Under The Dome here, nearly 40 hours of my life... for aliens! Needless to say I was quite pleased that there was some "reasonable" explanation for everything that was happening. Not a single alien in sight and the ending wrapped with a nice ominous vibe that made me glad they hadn't gone with a happily ever after scenario.
Apart from the camera work and the cheap ass jumping scares this wasn't such a bad film. If you ignore the things that don't make sense, like why are parents letting their creepy children give their dead pets a procession through another person's property... or why does the "pet sematary" actually have nothing to do with the resurrections... or why do they walk through about five miles of Star Wars-esque forest and swamp to a random mountain to do the ritual... yeah, if you ignore those things it isn't too bad.
What you should do
It's not a bad horror to watch and if you aren't a big ol' chicken like me then you might want to see it on the big screen.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
What I would like is something very specific, like genie wish specific, I want Church... but I want him in his curly looking death state... without the death. No smell, no blood, no guts, no demonic hell beast, just the regular cat type of hell beast.
