Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Gravity (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
We’ve long been spoiled by depictions of space in most science fiction, or at least in popular science fiction. A frontier, a futuristic ocean of sorts for maritime-type traversal. It’s hardly ever depicted as a particularly dangerous place. That’s exactly why Alfanso Cuaron’s Gravity is so incredibly refreshing and surprisingly so at that. All he really had to do was set out to depict a story in space that highlights how dangerous it really is. And boy does he succeed. Gravity is not only intriguing in its science, but also an incredibly gripping thriller.
The premise is focused and simple for the betterment of the film. Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Stone, a scientist who is on her first space walk installing new components onto the Hubble telescope. She is accompanied by George Clooney’s character, Kowalski, an experienced astronaut who’s calm in crisis helps guide the frightened Bullock through the following events. A massive accident leaves the characters stranded in space with no way home, periled by the hazards that go with being stuck in the abyss.
At its core, Gravity is a survival thriller movie. There is no villain other than the environment, no schemes or whacky plot twists. It’s reminiscent of a film like Cast Away, albeit quicker in pace because survival is more immediately at stake. The film takes so much into account, impressively, about the kinds of hazards one might face in a crisis that leaves them stuck in orbit. Oxygen, debris, structural damage, even how objects interact with one another or move in zero gravity. Most films in space neglect the ‘no sound in space’ rule, largely because of how awkward it would be to watch a Star Wars battle with no sound. But this film follows the rule, for the most part, and just that tiny detail alone adds so much to the anxiety of the situation. Watching speeding debris silently obliterate an entire space station while only hearing the internal suit audio of the protagonist might be the most frightening and memorable moments of any science fiction thriller I have seen in years.
Alfonso Cuaron is no stranger to striking imagery and near masterful shooting of important scenes. He has done so in his previous works, like Children of Men and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. He does so again through the action in Gravity. Although I will say a few visual metaphors in Gravity are a bit heavy handed in how they refer to the back story of the protagonist; yet nevertheless they end up having quite an impact despite arguable cheesiness.
The two leads do great in their roles; not hugely surprising considering Clooney and Bullock are established actors with great works under their belts. But at the same time both characters are light in their characterization, perhaps even ‘one-note’, particularly the case for Clooney. I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing, because it keeps the action of the film focused on the survival and the intensity of the situation. But, when those quieter scenes come by to pad the action, leaving the characters to mingle, I can’t help but feel like the drama is a little forced. There to give the audience someone to care about and desire to not die in space, and only for that purpose. Even if it’s forced, the personal struggle of Bullock’s character is admittedly compelling and you do want to see her make it out alive. Both the writing an acting for her character do an excellent job portraying her as someone overcoming an extremely difficult situation that she’s ill-equipped to deal with.
I’m not usually a fan of 3D, I think it’s often distracting and gimmicky. But this is one film that the 3D effect soars in. In the non-action moments it is nearly unnoticeable. And in those sequences where vessels are exploding spectacularly, space debris splintering in every direction, the 3D effect adds an extra layer of chaos and intensity around the characters’ fate. I seldom recommend going to see a film in 3D, but this is one I thoroughly recommend doing so.
Gravity is a pure focused thriller that tackles an environment so rich with possibility for great survival storytelling. Forget all the safe depictions of space like Star Wars and Star Trek, because this will make you as frightened of being stuck in space as Jaws did of being out in open water. It’s not perfect, certainly, as its drama ultimately draws too much attention to itself as a device of the plot, feeling a bit forced. Nevertheless, the superb acting on the parts of both leads ends up overcoming the potential shallowness of the characterization and makes you care about their survival – an absolute necessity in a film like this. The situations dealt with not only feel realistic, but are so excellently shot that the intensity is simply stunning.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/04/gravity/
The premise is focused and simple for the betterment of the film. Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Stone, a scientist who is on her first space walk installing new components onto the Hubble telescope. She is accompanied by George Clooney’s character, Kowalski, an experienced astronaut who’s calm in crisis helps guide the frightened Bullock through the following events. A massive accident leaves the characters stranded in space with no way home, periled by the hazards that go with being stuck in the abyss.
At its core, Gravity is a survival thriller movie. There is no villain other than the environment, no schemes or whacky plot twists. It’s reminiscent of a film like Cast Away, albeit quicker in pace because survival is more immediately at stake. The film takes so much into account, impressively, about the kinds of hazards one might face in a crisis that leaves them stuck in orbit. Oxygen, debris, structural damage, even how objects interact with one another or move in zero gravity. Most films in space neglect the ‘no sound in space’ rule, largely because of how awkward it would be to watch a Star Wars battle with no sound. But this film follows the rule, for the most part, and just that tiny detail alone adds so much to the anxiety of the situation. Watching speeding debris silently obliterate an entire space station while only hearing the internal suit audio of the protagonist might be the most frightening and memorable moments of any science fiction thriller I have seen in years.
Alfonso Cuaron is no stranger to striking imagery and near masterful shooting of important scenes. He has done so in his previous works, like Children of Men and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. He does so again through the action in Gravity. Although I will say a few visual metaphors in Gravity are a bit heavy handed in how they refer to the back story of the protagonist; yet nevertheless they end up having quite an impact despite arguable cheesiness.
The two leads do great in their roles; not hugely surprising considering Clooney and Bullock are established actors with great works under their belts. But at the same time both characters are light in their characterization, perhaps even ‘one-note’, particularly the case for Clooney. I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing, because it keeps the action of the film focused on the survival and the intensity of the situation. But, when those quieter scenes come by to pad the action, leaving the characters to mingle, I can’t help but feel like the drama is a little forced. There to give the audience someone to care about and desire to not die in space, and only for that purpose. Even if it’s forced, the personal struggle of Bullock’s character is admittedly compelling and you do want to see her make it out alive. Both the writing an acting for her character do an excellent job portraying her as someone overcoming an extremely difficult situation that she’s ill-equipped to deal with.
I’m not usually a fan of 3D, I think it’s often distracting and gimmicky. But this is one film that the 3D effect soars in. In the non-action moments it is nearly unnoticeable. And in those sequences where vessels are exploding spectacularly, space debris splintering in every direction, the 3D effect adds an extra layer of chaos and intensity around the characters’ fate. I seldom recommend going to see a film in 3D, but this is one I thoroughly recommend doing so.
Gravity is a pure focused thriller that tackles an environment so rich with possibility for great survival storytelling. Forget all the safe depictions of space like Star Wars and Star Trek, because this will make you as frightened of being stuck in space as Jaws did of being out in open water. It’s not perfect, certainly, as its drama ultimately draws too much attention to itself as a device of the plot, feeling a bit forced. Nevertheless, the superb acting on the parts of both leads ends up overcoming the potential shallowness of the characterization and makes you care about their survival – an absolute necessity in a film like this. The situations dealt with not only feel realistic, but are so excellently shot that the intensity is simply stunning.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/04/gravity/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life Itself (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love Actually with all the saccharine squeezed out.
Not the documentary of the same name from 2014 about the critic Rogert Ebert. This is an Amazon Studios/Sky Cinema Original Film (trying to follow where Netflix is boldly going), and as such it only had a very limited release in UK cinemas which I managed to miss.
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Beyond the Red (Beyond the Red, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
I can be trusted with responsibilities again! the reviewer says as she slowly climbs out of the reviewing hiatus hole.
You're delusional, the hiatus whispers menacingly, just a voice from the dark depths. You've still got a few books from 2016 left! And what about all those books you abandoned reviewing even though you want to review? I still have their souls! And I will have yours!
<b>I'm not going to get out of this, aren't I? 😢</b>
<i>Beyond the Red</i> is one of the last books I read back in 2017 that I haven't gotten around to reviewing yet, and here we are, a year later, with shenanigans but no review yet.
And when I want to write a review, I'm staring at a blank document in Google Drive for hours upon hours wondering what to say.
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><b>Four Things About <i>Beyond the Red</i></b></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">Generally I write a list of either the good or bad (primarily just good. Bad I've been skipping or writing little paragraphs for), but my brain is crying on the forgetfulness of this book, so I'm going to go with generic little things you should be aware of before picking up the book.</div>
<h3><b>There are two perspectives and they are polar opposites</b></h3>
We have a half-blood who loses everything and becomes a slave, and then we have a queen who technically has everything. I thought it was really cool to see Jaes world from two different sides of the spectrum.
<h3><b>I don't think I'm a fan of the language</b></h3>
I don't mind made up languages in a book (within boundaries, of course, because my brain cannot wrap itself around overly complex words sometimes), but <em>Beyond the Reds</em> world language is very similar to ours yet different.
<blockquote class="tr_bq">I know three different ways to break out of this kinduv brace, and everything inside me screams that I use one of them.
I wont feel bad, not for her, not after what she did, and yet I cant fight this fucken ridiculous need to fix this, to hold her until its okay.</blockquote>
Is it <i>meant </i>to be similar? I'm assuming so based on how humans are still around and the Sepharon are very similar to humans in <i>Beyond the Red</i>. <b>Either way, I'm confused.</b> Or I missed something. Who knows. <strong>I've been out of it lately. :/</strong>
<h3><b> </b><b>But the world building is super cool despite language</b></h3>
Jaes world building is well developed, and it's shown constantly throughout the book. And is it just me, or did anyone else think of this as Star Wars just a little? Am I just assuming Star Wars is going to be like this because if so, I'm going into the box of shame. (Lupe, help.)
Now that I look at the ARC I have, it's the blurbs. I blame the blurbs. Help me.
<h3><b>Thankfully, the names aren't complicated</b></h3>
Sometimes books go all out and the characters have strange names that are hard to pronounce, so my brain cries in terror and starts wailing. <i>Beyond the Red</i> has its strange names, but they're not complicated. They're an average of two syllables and my brain won't start tearing itself to shreds figuring out the right pronunciation. Is this right? wonders the reviewer, as she puzzles over all the possible ways to say the name.
Honestly, if you're looking for an adventure on a new planet that's a nod to Mars with not complicated names, <i>Beyond the Red</i> might be perfect for you. If you don't mind the language, that is.
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/beyond-red-ava-jae-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
I can be trusted with responsibilities again! the reviewer says as she slowly climbs out of the reviewing hiatus hole.
You're delusional, the hiatus whispers menacingly, just a voice from the dark depths. You've still got a few books from 2016 left! And what about all those books you abandoned reviewing even though you want to review? I still have their souls! And I will have yours!
<b>I'm not going to get out of this, aren't I? 😢</b>
<i>Beyond the Red</i> is one of the last books I read back in 2017 that I haven't gotten around to reviewing yet, and here we are, a year later, with shenanigans but no review yet.
And when I want to write a review, I'm staring at a blank document in Google Drive for hours upon hours wondering what to say.
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><b>Four Things About <i>Beyond the Red</i></b></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">Generally I write a list of either the good or bad (primarily just good. Bad I've been skipping or writing little paragraphs for), but my brain is crying on the forgetfulness of this book, so I'm going to go with generic little things you should be aware of before picking up the book.</div>
<h3><b>There are two perspectives and they are polar opposites</b></h3>
We have a half-blood who loses everything and becomes a slave, and then we have a queen who technically has everything. I thought it was really cool to see Jaes world from two different sides of the spectrum.
<h3><b>I don't think I'm a fan of the language</b></h3>
I don't mind made up languages in a book (within boundaries, of course, because my brain cannot wrap itself around overly complex words sometimes), but <em>Beyond the Reds</em> world language is very similar to ours yet different.
<blockquote class="tr_bq">I know three different ways to break out of this kinduv brace, and everything inside me screams that I use one of them.
I wont feel bad, not for her, not after what she did, and yet I cant fight this fucken ridiculous need to fix this, to hold her until its okay.</blockquote>
Is it <i>meant </i>to be similar? I'm assuming so based on how humans are still around and the Sepharon are very similar to humans in <i>Beyond the Red</i>. <b>Either way, I'm confused.</b> Or I missed something. Who knows. <strong>I've been out of it lately. :/</strong>
<h3><b> </b><b>But the world building is super cool despite language</b></h3>
Jaes world building is well developed, and it's shown constantly throughout the book. And is it just me, or did anyone else think of this as Star Wars just a little? Am I just assuming Star Wars is going to be like this because if so, I'm going into the box of shame. (Lupe, help.)
Now that I look at the ARC I have, it's the blurbs. I blame the blurbs. Help me.
<h3><b>Thankfully, the names aren't complicated</b></h3>
Sometimes books go all out and the characters have strange names that are hard to pronounce, so my brain cries in terror and starts wailing. <i>Beyond the Red</i> has its strange names, but they're not complicated. They're an average of two syllables and my brain won't start tearing itself to shreds figuring out the right pronunciation. Is this right? wonders the reviewer, as she puzzles over all the possible ways to say the name.
Honestly, if you're looking for an adventure on a new planet that's a nod to Mars with not complicated names, <i>Beyond the Red</i> might be perfect for you. If you don't mind the language, that is.
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/beyond-red-ava-jae-review/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Loopin' Chewie in Tabletop Games
Aug 21, 2019 (Updated Mar 31, 2021)
Cue the opening crawl! Chewbacca is attempting to take out the entire army of Storm Troopers on his own! Will he succeed, or can you fend him off in this unpredictable family game for 2-3 Storm Troopers?
Loopin’ Chewie is a re-theming of an older game titled Loopin’ Louie. I never played Loopin’ Louie, and I am a fan of Star Wars (not a super duper fan, but I like the series), so when I saw this at Wal-Mart (of all places) I picked it up. For $13. I knew my son would love it, so that’s why I bought it. Yeah, that’s why.
In Loopin’ Chewie the players are supposed to be protecting the Death Star from Chewbacca flying in the Millennium Falcon. Chewie flies around the play area and dives at the players’ Storm Trooper discs trying to cut them down. The players are readied at their own personal station to swat Chewie away and rein terror on their opponents using colorful levers.
To setup the game, assemble the components as instructed in the rule sheet to build a teetering tower of unpredictable Chewbacca Falcon dives. Give each player three Storm Trooper discs to be loaded in their play area, turn on the central motor and the game is off!
Players will be tapping their lever when Chewie dives close to their area in attempts to shoo him away to opponents. Players are eliminated from the round when all three of their Storm Trooper discs have been flattened by Chewbacca. Play continues as players swat Chewie this way and that until one player remains with discs in their area. This player is the victor and will need to accept challenges from their opponents to play just one more round. Again and again.
Components. For a $13 family game from Hasbro found at Wal-Mart, the components here are actually quite stellar. The Chewbacca riding the Millennium Falcon is great, the overall design of the player areas and Storm Trooper discs is wonderful, and I have not had one problem with the motorized components presented. A+ from me on components here.
This is obviously not a gamer’s game, but it certainly is fun when you are playing with other people, especially with children. The sheer joy on their faces is worth everything as Chewie comes attacking and they are able to fend him off and send him your way as you (maybe purposefully) are too slow on the swat and your Storm Troopers are defeated. It is quick, super light, and can effectively work as a filler game, or just something to pull out when you need to entertain the littles for a few minutes. It won’t last throughout an entire nap period, but it will certainly do well to bond with your children (or drinking buddies I guess) over a silly game of Chewbacca pouncing on your Storm Troopers.
If you find this one out in the wild, pick it up. Your kids will thank you.
Loopin’ Chewie is a re-theming of an older game titled Loopin’ Louie. I never played Loopin’ Louie, and I am a fan of Star Wars (not a super duper fan, but I like the series), so when I saw this at Wal-Mart (of all places) I picked it up. For $13. I knew my son would love it, so that’s why I bought it. Yeah, that’s why.
In Loopin’ Chewie the players are supposed to be protecting the Death Star from Chewbacca flying in the Millennium Falcon. Chewie flies around the play area and dives at the players’ Storm Trooper discs trying to cut them down. The players are readied at their own personal station to swat Chewie away and rein terror on their opponents using colorful levers.
To setup the game, assemble the components as instructed in the rule sheet to build a teetering tower of unpredictable Chewbacca Falcon dives. Give each player three Storm Trooper discs to be loaded in their play area, turn on the central motor and the game is off!
Players will be tapping their lever when Chewie dives close to their area in attempts to shoo him away to opponents. Players are eliminated from the round when all three of their Storm Trooper discs have been flattened by Chewbacca. Play continues as players swat Chewie this way and that until one player remains with discs in their area. This player is the victor and will need to accept challenges from their opponents to play just one more round. Again and again.
Components. For a $13 family game from Hasbro found at Wal-Mart, the components here are actually quite stellar. The Chewbacca riding the Millennium Falcon is great, the overall design of the player areas and Storm Trooper discs is wonderful, and I have not had one problem with the motorized components presented. A+ from me on components here.
This is obviously not a gamer’s game, but it certainly is fun when you are playing with other people, especially with children. The sheer joy on their faces is worth everything as Chewie comes attacking and they are able to fend him off and send him your way as you (maybe purposefully) are too slow on the swat and your Storm Troopers are defeated. It is quick, super light, and can effectively work as a filler game, or just something to pull out when you need to entertain the littles for a few minutes. It won’t last throughout an entire nap period, but it will certainly do well to bond with your children (or drinking buddies I guess) over a silly game of Chewbacca pouncing on your Storm Troopers.
If you find this one out in the wild, pick it up. Your kids will thank you.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019
With Tomorrowland's lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn't involve watching this movie.
Disney’s Tomorrowland implores us to imagine a world without limitation. One where nothing is impossible, and all of our wildest dreams can come true. (Sounds very trademark Disney, doesn’t it?) In the movie, that world exists in the form of a secret utopian society that has been built by only the brightest of minds. It is a place that exists free of politics and corruption, where people can push the boundaries of possibility as far as their imaginations will take them. Tomorrowland is a world meant to inspire, to evoke wonder, and to nurture creativity. It’s a stunning shame then, that all I ever felt while watching the movie was sheer boredom. For all of its endless opportunity, Tomorrowland ends up being almost completely uninteresting. With Tomorrowland‘s lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your own future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn’t involve ever watching this movie.
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Clerks (1994) in Movies
Apr 22, 2017
Simple (3 more)
Hilarious
Pop Culture discussions
Jay and Silent Bob
I'm not even suppose to be here today!
Here is a film that could have left Kevin Smith in the Quickstop paying off the money he used to make this film, which he accomplished by maxing out credit cards.
Kevin Smith is an inspiration and this film is the start of it all. Clerks is a very simple film that manages to be entertaining and hilarious. The concept is this; Dante Hicks (Brian O'Halloran) is asked to work on his day off, and ends up spending his day working in his dead end job behind the counter at a convenience store in New Jersey.
I should mention that this film is shot on a Arriflex 16 SR2 which means the film is in black and white.
Working with Dante is his best friend, Randal Graves, who isn't exactly a big help around the store or with personal problems. If anything, he makes matters worse because he almost never takes anything seriously.
The humour in this film is found through discussions of films such as Star Wars, discussions about sex, and about the customers of course. Describing it in text doesn't do it justice so you'll just have to watch it if I have in anyway peaked your interest.
This film was the introduction to what is known as the 'View Askewniverse' which is a series of films by Kevin Smith which are all connected via characters and events. However, the most important introductions from this film are the characters of the now famous duo, Jay and Silent Bob played by Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith. Yes, the same Kevin Smith who wrote and Directed the Movie. These two are the only two characters to appear in every movie in the View Askewniverse and usually help move the film in the right direction.
Overall, Clerks has to be one of my favourite movies of all time and once you watch the Askewniverse, it's easy to understand why, because no only is it smart and hilarious, but you have to appreciate that this started a series of other great indie films that made Kevin Smith the funny man he is today.
Kevin Smith is an inspiration and this film is the start of it all. Clerks is a very simple film that manages to be entertaining and hilarious. The concept is this; Dante Hicks (Brian O'Halloran) is asked to work on his day off, and ends up spending his day working in his dead end job behind the counter at a convenience store in New Jersey.
I should mention that this film is shot on a Arriflex 16 SR2 which means the film is in black and white.
Working with Dante is his best friend, Randal Graves, who isn't exactly a big help around the store or with personal problems. If anything, he makes matters worse because he almost never takes anything seriously.
The humour in this film is found through discussions of films such as Star Wars, discussions about sex, and about the customers of course. Describing it in text doesn't do it justice so you'll just have to watch it if I have in anyway peaked your interest.
This film was the introduction to what is known as the 'View Askewniverse' which is a series of films by Kevin Smith which are all connected via characters and events. However, the most important introductions from this film are the characters of the now famous duo, Jay and Silent Bob played by Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith. Yes, the same Kevin Smith who wrote and Directed the Movie. These two are the only two characters to appear in every movie in the View Askewniverse and usually help move the film in the right direction.
Overall, Clerks has to be one of my favourite movies of all time and once you watch the Askewniverse, it's easy to understand why, because no only is it smart and hilarious, but you have to appreciate that this started a series of other great indie films that made Kevin Smith the funny man he is today.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”
It has been over 20 years since I first saw this as teenager, but watching it again with little memory of the specifics, I was both a little disappointed but also very impressed.
With a title like “Judgement at Nuremberg,” you can be forgiven for expecting a film about the trial of the Concentration Camp guards or Hermann Goering, but instead we are given something much more subtle and subversive. This follows a fictionalised account of the “Judges Trial”.
Here, Spencer Tracey’s U.S. Judge leads a panel of three peers as they preside over a trial of four NAZI judges, the focus of their crimes is not of there actions during the war but those in the mid 1930’s and their perversions of justice in aiding Hitler’s NAZI’s to oppress their own people.
The film also asked a myriad of uncomfortable questions, not only taking aim at the long dead National Socialist movement, but the world as a whole, including the U.S.A. Sighting parallels from Allied nations who claim cultural superiority after winning the war yet only being a stone’s throw away from the same attitudes.
But this is not just subverting the perceptions of jurist prudence, it is a drama, a head to head between Tracey and his German counterpart in the doc, Bert Lancaster. It is also a vehicle for a host of Oscar worthy performances from an all star cast, ALL of which excel in their roles, some more subtly than others.
The standouts are Montgomery Cliff and Judy Garland, both of whom would pass away soon after this film was release at relatively young ages. Kramer’s cinematography is impressive too, as it keeps the camera moving around the courtroom through the lengthy cross-examination scenes, keeping the tension high and the interest alive through this three-hour drama.
With a healthy dose of melancholy, jaded and brutalised characters and foreshadowing the impending Cold War, this is a film which understands war and the often forgotten fact that even though Wars have a start and and end date, they take decades to build up and never really end.
With a title like “Judgement at Nuremberg,” you can be forgiven for expecting a film about the trial of the Concentration Camp guards or Hermann Goering, but instead we are given something much more subtle and subversive. This follows a fictionalised account of the “Judges Trial”.
Here, Spencer Tracey’s U.S. Judge leads a panel of three peers as they preside over a trial of four NAZI judges, the focus of their crimes is not of there actions during the war but those in the mid 1930’s and their perversions of justice in aiding Hitler’s NAZI’s to oppress their own people.
The film also asked a myriad of uncomfortable questions, not only taking aim at the long dead National Socialist movement, but the world as a whole, including the U.S.A. Sighting parallels from Allied nations who claim cultural superiority after winning the war yet only being a stone’s throw away from the same attitudes.
But this is not just subverting the perceptions of jurist prudence, it is a drama, a head to head between Tracey and his German counterpart in the doc, Bert Lancaster. It is also a vehicle for a host of Oscar worthy performances from an all star cast, ALL of which excel in their roles, some more subtly than others.
The standouts are Montgomery Cliff and Judy Garland, both of whom would pass away soon after this film was release at relatively young ages. Kramer’s cinematography is impressive too, as it keeps the camera moving around the courtroom through the lengthy cross-examination scenes, keeping the tension high and the interest alive through this three-hour drama.
With a healthy dose of melancholy, jaded and brutalised characters and foreshadowing the impending Cold War, this is a film which understands war and the often forgotten fact that even though Wars have a start and and end date, they take decades to build up and never really end.
Zach Smith (62 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Jan 17, 2020
What went wrong?
Contains spoilers, click to show
So in my review I will make very controversial statements. This movie should have been secured future funding for the series however it may have just done enough damage to bury the Terminator for good.
So they kill little fresh faced John in the first five minutes. Only to replace with the new standard of hero in our society, an empowered female. This is being overdone in Hollywood I believe causing people to become tired with the predictability of it. On top of that shit sandwich we have a President that has villainized an entire race of people (Mexicans) which has fueled hatred that has been lying dormant in Americas belly waiting to be vomited up from ques by the leader of the "free" world. Well the "new" John Conner is a female, Latino. So James Camron and friends make a movie that kills off a beloved resistance hero and replaces him with someone that the Trump Nation has been brain washed into believing is the enemy of America.
I'm all for the empowered female but they are over doing it, we now have four star wars movies where the heroic main character is an empowered female.
Onto the highlights: The new color of the Rev Terminator is great black, the idea of a liquid terminator was seen in Terminator 3 Rise of the Machines which I loved, however the new color and the energy this machine shows is pretty intense.
_ There is a zero G flight in a plane going down which is fucking fantastic!
-They drive an armored Humvee underwater, kinda lame.
-End fight sequence is at the Hoover dam which was pretty cool.
Luckily its all about time travel and if they decide to resurrect the franchise again maybe they can do a proper sequel where John lives to fight another day, however don't count on it.
I give the movie a snore factor of 0/10 because I never looked away from the screen even though it made me disappointed.
So they kill little fresh faced John in the first five minutes. Only to replace with the new standard of hero in our society, an empowered female. This is being overdone in Hollywood I believe causing people to become tired with the predictability of it. On top of that shit sandwich we have a President that has villainized an entire race of people (Mexicans) which has fueled hatred that has been lying dormant in Americas belly waiting to be vomited up from ques by the leader of the "free" world. Well the "new" John Conner is a female, Latino. So James Camron and friends make a movie that kills off a beloved resistance hero and replaces him with someone that the Trump Nation has been brain washed into believing is the enemy of America.
I'm all for the empowered female but they are over doing it, we now have four star wars movies where the heroic main character is an empowered female.
Onto the highlights: The new color of the Rev Terminator is great black, the idea of a liquid terminator was seen in Terminator 3 Rise of the Machines which I loved, however the new color and the energy this machine shows is pretty intense.
_ There is a zero G flight in a plane going down which is fucking fantastic!
-They drive an armored Humvee underwater, kinda lame.
-End fight sequence is at the Hoover dam which was pretty cool.
Luckily its all about time travel and if they decide to resurrect the franchise again maybe they can do a proper sequel where John lives to fight another day, however don't count on it.
I give the movie a snore factor of 0/10 because I never looked away from the screen even though it made me disappointed.
JT (287 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Re-imagining of classic horror films can go either way. They can stick close to the original while giving it a fresh injection of gore to satisfy the bloodthirsty millennials. Or deviate it from the storyline altogether to put its own spin on the narrative.
In the Child’s Play remake the original ‘Good Guy’ dolls have been replaced by 21st-century technology in the form of ‘Buddi’ dolls which, have been produced by Kaslan Industries. And instead of a psychotic serial killer transferring his soul to the body of a doll, Buddi has all of his safety features disabled by a disgruntled Kaslan employee. The change from possession to A.I. fits perfectly within the modern world where people rely heavily on their phones and various voice-activated gadgets.
The gore levels should more than satisfy horror fans with death scenes ranging from tillers, saws and self-driving cars
Best friends, Chucky and Andy (Gabriel Bateman) share a moment
Chucky, as he will inevitably call himself, makes his way to Chicago and into the home of the Barclay’s, where mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza) gets her hands on the defective doll as an early birthday present for son Andy (Gabriel Bateman). After a few small glitches (eyes turning red) Andy and Chucky start to form a close bond. But the bond takes a sinister turn when Chucky starts to act differently in his pursuit of the ultimate friendship.
One of the highlights of the film is the brilliant casting of Mark Hamill as the voice of the murderous doll. Hamill (outside of Star Wars) is well known as a talented voice actor, having provided the voice of the Joker in the animated series. Hamill uses his full range of softly spoken innocence and demented rage to portray a character who is influenced by everything around him (there are blatant references to E.T.) and then uses it to the best of his ability in killing off people in a range of horrific (and comical) ways.
The gore levels should more than satisfy horror fans with death scenes ranging from tillers, saws and self-driving cars. It’s not without its faults but this satirical take on the slasher genre is certainly B-movie levels at best.
In the Child’s Play remake the original ‘Good Guy’ dolls have been replaced by 21st-century technology in the form of ‘Buddi’ dolls which, have been produced by Kaslan Industries. And instead of a psychotic serial killer transferring his soul to the body of a doll, Buddi has all of his safety features disabled by a disgruntled Kaslan employee. The change from possession to A.I. fits perfectly within the modern world where people rely heavily on their phones and various voice-activated gadgets.
The gore levels should more than satisfy horror fans with death scenes ranging from tillers, saws and self-driving cars
Best friends, Chucky and Andy (Gabriel Bateman) share a moment
Chucky, as he will inevitably call himself, makes his way to Chicago and into the home of the Barclay’s, where mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza) gets her hands on the defective doll as an early birthday present for son Andy (Gabriel Bateman). After a few small glitches (eyes turning red) Andy and Chucky start to form a close bond. But the bond takes a sinister turn when Chucky starts to act differently in his pursuit of the ultimate friendship.
One of the highlights of the film is the brilliant casting of Mark Hamill as the voice of the murderous doll. Hamill (outside of Star Wars) is well known as a talented voice actor, having provided the voice of the Joker in the animated series. Hamill uses his full range of softly spoken innocence and demented rage to portray a character who is influenced by everything around him (there are blatant references to E.T.) and then uses it to the best of his ability in killing off people in a range of horrific (and comical) ways.
The gore levels should more than satisfy horror fans with death scenes ranging from tillers, saws and self-driving cars. It’s not without its faults but this satirical take on the slasher genre is certainly B-movie levels at best.
RA
Rockne and Jones: Notre Dame, USC, and the Greatest Rivalry of the Roaring Twenties
Book
Notre Dame's rallying cry was once "Win one for the Gipper." e football series with Army that...