Search
Search results
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated Queen Sugar in Books
May 10, 2018
Charley Bordelon has just inherited 800 acres of a sugar cane farm from her father. So she uproots herself and her daughter from their life in California to Saint Josephine, Louisiana. She moves in with her grandmother, Miss Honey and tries her best to raise a successful cane farm. With other family members stepping in her way, this can prove to be difficult at times. Charley is doing the best she can, but will it be enough to keep the farm or will she be forced to sell it and head back to California.
I watched the series for this book on <a href="http://www.oprah.com/app/queen-sugar.html">OWN</a>; and I loved it. If I would have known about the book, I definitely would have read that first. They always say, the book is better than the movie, but in this case, I will say that the book was not as good as the series. The characterization is a little different and the TV series definitely added a lot more drama to the situation. Overall, though, I enjoyed the book and look forward to other books by <a href="http://nataliebaszile.com/">Natalie Baszile</a>.
Charley Bordelon has a lot on her plate. She has an adolescent daughter who hates the idea of leaving her home in California to live in a remote area of Louisiana. She has a sugar cane farm she has just inherited and she knows nothing about sugar cane. Her older brother Ralph Angel feels as though he is entitled to something, but he feels that way about everything in his life. Dealing with hurricanes, quitting farm hands, no money, and flooding back lots, there is a lot to learn and most people in the area, don't think she can do it.
The book takes you on a journey through Charley's first season of Cane Farming and all the trials and tribulations she endures during this time. I enjoyed the book and I look forward to the new season of the show coming this summer!
I watched the series for this book on <a href="http://www.oprah.com/app/queen-sugar.html">OWN</a>; and I loved it. If I would have known about the book, I definitely would have read that first. They always say, the book is better than the movie, but in this case, I will say that the book was not as good as the series. The characterization is a little different and the TV series definitely added a lot more drama to the situation. Overall, though, I enjoyed the book and look forward to other books by <a href="http://nataliebaszile.com/">Natalie Baszile</a>.
Charley Bordelon has a lot on her plate. She has an adolescent daughter who hates the idea of leaving her home in California to live in a remote area of Louisiana. She has a sugar cane farm she has just inherited and she knows nothing about sugar cane. Her older brother Ralph Angel feels as though he is entitled to something, but he feels that way about everything in his life. Dealing with hurricanes, quitting farm hands, no money, and flooding back lots, there is a lot to learn and most people in the area, don't think she can do it.
The book takes you on a journey through Charley's first season of Cane Farming and all the trials and tribulations she endures during this time. I enjoyed the book and I look forward to the new season of the show coming this summer!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005) in Movies
Nov 29, 2019 (Updated Dec 20, 2019)
The final chapter of the Star Wars prequel trilogy is definitely the high point (which isn't the highest praise...) throwing a large amount of sci-fi action at the audience, whilst bring the Star Wars narrative full circle and finally tying into the first film.
The action is over gratuitous at times, but it's still entertaining enough - the opening space battle, the climatic battle between Jedis, the harrowing Order 66 scene.
The special effects here are noticably improved from Episodes I and II, and once again, the various locations and landscapes that we're shown are stunning to look at (Kashyyyk is a good example).
The most important character arc here is of course Anakin's, as he completes his turn to the dark side and steps further towards the iconic Darth Vader. I much prefer Hayden Christensen this time around, although he's still wooden in parts - I get the feeling that he's trying his best, but George Lucas isn't giving a whole lot for him to work with.
Ewan McGregor is great once again as Obi Wan.
The biggest new character we're introduced to in ROTS is General Grievous, who's ok I guess - he's nothing more than a CGI model designed to sell merchandise, but then again, who doesn't want to see someone wield four lightsabers at once ey?
The dialogue is just about more bearable than in the other two prequel films, and the movie has a general sense of 'getting shit done' than before, and it's all the better for it and has some dark turns here and there.
There are some cringey bits of course - the unessecary Chewbacca line for one, and of course, the god awful 'NOOOOOOO' line near the end (literal sick in my mouth)
When looking back on the prequel trilogy of Star Wars, it's easy to cast them aside and say they're no good, when in reality, that's not wholly true. They have they're moments and will always be something that I'll (maybe) watch when they're on TV...
The action is over gratuitous at times, but it's still entertaining enough - the opening space battle, the climatic battle between Jedis, the harrowing Order 66 scene.
The special effects here are noticably improved from Episodes I and II, and once again, the various locations and landscapes that we're shown are stunning to look at (Kashyyyk is a good example).
The most important character arc here is of course Anakin's, as he completes his turn to the dark side and steps further towards the iconic Darth Vader. I much prefer Hayden Christensen this time around, although he's still wooden in parts - I get the feeling that he's trying his best, but George Lucas isn't giving a whole lot for him to work with.
Ewan McGregor is great once again as Obi Wan.
The biggest new character we're introduced to in ROTS is General Grievous, who's ok I guess - he's nothing more than a CGI model designed to sell merchandise, but then again, who doesn't want to see someone wield four lightsabers at once ey?
The dialogue is just about more bearable than in the other two prequel films, and the movie has a general sense of 'getting shit done' than before, and it's all the better for it and has some dark turns here and there.
There are some cringey bits of course - the unessecary Chewbacca line for one, and of course, the god awful 'NOOOOOOO' line near the end (literal sick in my mouth)
When looking back on the prequel trilogy of Star Wars, it's easy to cast them aside and say they're no good, when in reality, that's not wholly true. They have they're moments and will always be something that I'll (maybe) watch when they're on TV...
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Winner's Crime (The Winner's Trilogy, #2) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Dear <i>The Winner's Crime</i>,
You remind me of <i>Revenge.</i> Just... more fun.
Lady Kestrel is like Emily and the emperor is like Victoria or Veronica or whats-her-face, and her words are so carefully plotted, her moves so masterfully calculated - I've pretty much decided to not make an attempt to predict you. I find that not predicting sometimes is more fun and more enjoyable.
You are like any other movie or TV show consisting of royalty - espionage, drama, tension, gossip, the like. But I like you, and I enjoyed reading you. Kestrel is clever, but so is the prince and Arin and almost all the other characters in this novel. Yet, I still enjoy it. I enjoy the lies and deception, the drama and tension in the palace as Kestrel's wedding day gets closer and closer.
Thus, I find you more a guilty pleasure read. I find you such a guilty pleasure, I don't want to rate you, because if I do, it'll be a high one for sure. I can't high-five you - you're on a hold shelf already and that's just a fatal flaw of libraries, but it's a great feeling because someone else can enjoy the fabulousness of what you are. Then you'll be placed on a shelf somewhere else, or on a hold shelf again, traveling to another reader and then another, and your older sibling will repeat the same process.
And when your younger sibling comes around, s/he will be doing the same thing. In fact, it'll be your fault - you left everyone at a cliffhanger and all of us are demanding to know how this story will unfold.
<div style="text-align: right;">Sincerely,</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">Sophia</div>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-winners-crime-by-marie-rutkoski/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
You remind me of <i>Revenge.</i> Just... more fun.
Lady Kestrel is like Emily and the emperor is like Victoria or Veronica or whats-her-face, and her words are so carefully plotted, her moves so masterfully calculated - I've pretty much decided to not make an attempt to predict you. I find that not predicting sometimes is more fun and more enjoyable.
You are like any other movie or TV show consisting of royalty - espionage, drama, tension, gossip, the like. But I like you, and I enjoyed reading you. Kestrel is clever, but so is the prince and Arin and almost all the other characters in this novel. Yet, I still enjoy it. I enjoy the lies and deception, the drama and tension in the palace as Kestrel's wedding day gets closer and closer.
Thus, I find you more a guilty pleasure read. I find you such a guilty pleasure, I don't want to rate you, because if I do, it'll be a high one for sure. I can't high-five you - you're on a hold shelf already and that's just a fatal flaw of libraries, but it's a great feeling because someone else can enjoy the fabulousness of what you are. Then you'll be placed on a shelf somewhere else, or on a hold shelf again, traveling to another reader and then another, and your older sibling will repeat the same process.
And when your younger sibling comes around, s/he will be doing the same thing. In fact, it'll be your fault - you left everyone at a cliffhanger and all of us are demanding to know how this story will unfold.
<div style="text-align: right;">Sincerely,</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">Sophia</div>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-winners-crime-by-marie-rutkoski/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Water Diviner (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Russell Crowe both stars and directs the new film The Water Diviner.
The story follows Joshua Conner (Crowe) and his attempts to re-locate his three sons Arthur, Henry and Edward, who went off to war together and yet were never heard from again. The three boys were inseparable as children (Jack Patterson, Ben Norris and Aidan Smith) and they stayed inseparable as adults (played by Ryan Corr, Ben O’Toole and James Fraser) as they went off to fight in World War I in the Battle of Gallipoli in Turkey.
Joshua loses contact with his sons during the war, and after the fighting has ended, he receives a journal that belonged to them. He reads the journal with his wife and they conclude that the boys must have perished in the fighting. Corners wife kills herself in her grief over losing them and Joshua swears he will bring the boys home, even if it is just their remains, that is his wife’s last wish.
Conner crosses the continent to search for them, meeting people along the way and finding clues. His efforts to locate the boys are rejected by military authorities but he stubbornly presses on.
Seeing this film in the movie theatre rather than on a home television is definitely worth it. The action and scenes of war flash backs are better suited to the big screen than a home tv for full effect and drawing you in to feel like you are ‘right there’.
The story was a bit predictable because after all, it’s the story of a father searching for his children, but it was emotional and held my attention.
Parts of it felt a bit slow, or maybe just confusing, because during the flash backs I wasn’t really sure whose flash backs they were or why they were significant, but over all the story flowed well and I enjoyed it.
The story follows Joshua Conner (Crowe) and his attempts to re-locate his three sons Arthur, Henry and Edward, who went off to war together and yet were never heard from again. The three boys were inseparable as children (Jack Patterson, Ben Norris and Aidan Smith) and they stayed inseparable as adults (played by Ryan Corr, Ben O’Toole and James Fraser) as they went off to fight in World War I in the Battle of Gallipoli in Turkey.
Joshua loses contact with his sons during the war, and after the fighting has ended, he receives a journal that belonged to them. He reads the journal with his wife and they conclude that the boys must have perished in the fighting. Corners wife kills herself in her grief over losing them and Joshua swears he will bring the boys home, even if it is just their remains, that is his wife’s last wish.
Conner crosses the continent to search for them, meeting people along the way and finding clues. His efforts to locate the boys are rejected by military authorities but he stubbornly presses on.
Seeing this film in the movie theatre rather than on a home television is definitely worth it. The action and scenes of war flash backs are better suited to the big screen than a home tv for full effect and drawing you in to feel like you are ‘right there’.
The story was a bit predictable because after all, it’s the story of a father searching for his children, but it was emotional and held my attention.
Parts of it felt a bit slow, or maybe just confusing, because during the flash backs I wasn’t really sure whose flash backs they were or why they were significant, but over all the story flowed well and I enjoyed it.
Ryan Gosling: Hollywood's Finest
Book
Acclaimed for his good looks as much as his searing acting ability, Canadian actor Ryan Gosling...
Rob Halford recommended Cowboys from Hell by Pantera in Music (curated)
Malayala Manorama News App
News
App
Latest Kerala News in Malayalam and English. Local News with Live News Coverage, Sports News,...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Order in TV
Jul 6, 2020 (Updated Jul 6, 2020)
Don't Call Them Witches - 7/10
The Order is a 2019 supernatural horror/drama tv series created by Dennis Heaton and a team of writers including: Dennis Heaton, Shelley Eriksen, Rachel Langer, Jennica Harper, Penny Gummerson and Jason Filiatrault. The show was produced by Nomadic Pictures with producers Petros Danabassis, Jay Daniel Beechinor, and Morris Chapdelaine and released on Netflix in March. The shows stars Jake Manley, Sarah Grey, Matt Frewer, and Max Martini.
Thrust into a world of magic and monsters (werewolves), Jack Morten (Jake Manley) must pledge himself to a secret society so that he can avenge the death of his mother by their leader, Edward Coventry (Max Martini). His only family is his grandfather, "Pops" (Matt Frewer), the genius behind their plan for him to infiltrate the order and learn what he can to bring them down from the inside. Things go from bad to worse as he uncovers The Hermetic Order of the Blue Rose are practitioners of magic and someone or something is killing their pledges on campus. And more complications arise as he becomes enamoured with a higher ranking member Alyssa Drake (Sarah Grey) and a group of Knights whose mission is to stop evil magic users.
The Order is a decent show. I liked it alot but it was hard for me to get behind. It definitely has a lot of flaws and I can see a lot of people (like critics) tearing this show apart. That being said, I can't believe it has 100% on rotten tomatoes at this point or that it has been renewed for a second season. It was pretty slow building to me especially because I thought it was only going to be a secret society type show like the movie The Skulls but with a werewolf angle to it. I was very surprised when it was more about a magic secret society and later had a werewolf element to it. What I really didn't care for so much was the love theme to it that made me want to compare it to Twilight. You'll know what I'm talking about if you give it a chance. I really wanted to give this show a 6. There was a lot to hate in this show but it did get better towards the end. One thing the dialogue was full of cussing, which I didn't mind at all but it felt very amateurish. It made me laugh a lot but it also made me feel like the writers were in high school still. And I believe it's the main reason for the TV-MA rating. Which is another complaint I had. I don't think that for a rated TV-MA show, particularly a horror one, did they have enough violence, blood or gore. It felt very watered down to me in those respects. To me it seems like it was a cool idea, they had good actors who suffered from poor script and dialogue with a decent enough plot but a director(s) who were going for more of a Twilight vibe. As it gets farther into it did get better but barely got a 7 from me. As I write this I'm still contemplating whether to change my rating. It did do somethings quite well. They didn't mess up on the werewolves and even did them in a unique way and I appreciated the world building and
lore that they brought to them. Even the way they portrayed magic in the series was well done. I also generally liked the second half of the seasons' story arc and plot. I give this show a 7/10. I don't recommend it to anyone unless you were a big fan of the Twilight films or if you are just someone who watches anything with magic or werewolves.
Thrust into a world of magic and monsters (werewolves), Jack Morten (Jake Manley) must pledge himself to a secret society so that he can avenge the death of his mother by their leader, Edward Coventry (Max Martini). His only family is his grandfather, "Pops" (Matt Frewer), the genius behind their plan for him to infiltrate the order and learn what he can to bring them down from the inside. Things go from bad to worse as he uncovers The Hermetic Order of the Blue Rose are practitioners of magic and someone or something is killing their pledges on campus. And more complications arise as he becomes enamoured with a higher ranking member Alyssa Drake (Sarah Grey) and a group of Knights whose mission is to stop evil magic users.
The Order is a decent show. I liked it alot but it was hard for me to get behind. It definitely has a lot of flaws and I can see a lot of people (like critics) tearing this show apart. That being said, I can't believe it has 100% on rotten tomatoes at this point or that it has been renewed for a second season. It was pretty slow building to me especially because I thought it was only going to be a secret society type show like the movie The Skulls but with a werewolf angle to it. I was very surprised when it was more about a magic secret society and later had a werewolf element to it. What I really didn't care for so much was the love theme to it that made me want to compare it to Twilight. You'll know what I'm talking about if you give it a chance. I really wanted to give this show a 6. There was a lot to hate in this show but it did get better towards the end. One thing the dialogue was full of cussing, which I didn't mind at all but it felt very amateurish. It made me laugh a lot but it also made me feel like the writers were in high school still. And I believe it's the main reason for the TV-MA rating. Which is another complaint I had. I don't think that for a rated TV-MA show, particularly a horror one, did they have enough violence, blood or gore. It felt very watered down to me in those respects. To me it seems like it was a cool idea, they had good actors who suffered from poor script and dialogue with a decent enough plot but a director(s) who were going for more of a Twilight vibe. As it gets farther into it did get better but barely got a 7 from me. As I write this I'm still contemplating whether to change my rating. It did do somethings quite well. They didn't mess up on the werewolves and even did them in a unique way and I appreciated the world building and
lore that they brought to them. Even the way they portrayed magic in the series was well done. I also generally liked the second half of the seasons' story arc and plot. I give this show a 7/10. I don't recommend it to anyone unless you were a big fan of the Twilight films or if you are just someone who watches anything with magic or werewolves.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Great Wall (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Exercising your Damons.
Millions of people watching the Oscars would have seen Jimmy Kimmel roasting poor Matt Damon as a part of their long running ‘feud’. At one point he points out that Matt gave up the leading role in “Manchester by the Sea” to star in a “Chinese ponytail movie” that “went on to lose $80 million at the box office”. “The Great Wall” is that movie!
So is it really that bad?
Well, it’s no “Manchester by the Sea” for sure. But I don’t think it’s quite the total turkey that critics have been labelling it as either. I went to see it on a Sunday afternoon, and approaching it as a matinee bit of frothy action is a good mental state to be in.
Matt Damon plays the ponytailed-wonder William, a European mercenary travelling in 11th Century China with his colleague Tovar (Pedro Pascal) in an attempt to determine the secrets of black powder – a secret well-guarded by the Chinese. Captured by the ‘New Order’ at the Great Wall and imprisoned there by General Shao (Hanyu Zhang), William earns the respect of Shao and his beautiful warrior second-in-command Lin Mae (Tian Jing) with his bowmanship. This is almost immediately put to use by the arrival (after 60 year’s absence – a funny thing, timing, isn’t it?) of hoards of vicious creatures called Taoties. (I thought they said Tauntauns initially, so was expecting some sort of Chinese/Star Wars crossover! But no.)
Taoties who scale the wall are defeated by William who poleaxes them. (This is an attempt at brilliant humour to anyone who has already seen the film – poleaxe…. get it? POLEaxe. Oh, never mind!) Despite being a mercenary at heart, William is torn between staying and helping Lin Mae fight the beasts and fleeing with Tovar, their new chum Ballard (Willem Dafoe) and their black powder loot. (I’m sure something about Lin Mae’s tight-fitting blue armour was influential in his decision).
This is an historic film in that although in recent years there has been cross-fertilization of Chinese actors into Western films for box-office reasons (for example, in the appalling “Independence Day: Resurgence” and the much better Damon vehicle “The Martian“) this was the first truly co-produced Chinese/Hollywood feature filmed entirely in China. It might also be the last given the film’s $150 million budget and the dismal box-office!
To start with some positives, you can rely on a Chinese-set film (the film location was Qingdao) to allow the use of an army of extras and – although a whole bunch of CGI was also no doubt used – some of the battles scenes are impressive. There is a stirring choral theme by Ramin Djawadi (best known for his TV themes for “Game of Thrones” and the brilliant “Westworld”) played over silk-screen painted end titles that just make for a beautiful combination. And Tian Jing as the heroine Lin Mae is not only stunningly good-looking but also injects some much needed acting talent into the cast, where most of those involved (including Damon himself) look like they would rather be somewhere else.
And some of the action scenes are rather fun in a ‘park your brain by the door’ sort of way, including (nonsensically) cute warrior girls high-diving off the wall on bungey ropes to near certain death. While the CGI monsters are of the (yawn) over-the-top LoTR variety, their ability to swarm like locusts at the Queen’s command is also quite entertainingly rendered.
Where the movie balloon comes crashing down to earth in flames though is with the story and the screenplay – all done by three different people each, which is NEVER a good sign.
The story (by Max Brooks (“World War Z”), Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz (both on “The Last Samurai”) is plain nonsensical at times. No spoilers here, but the transition from “wall under siege” to “wall not under siege” gives the word ‘clunky’ a bad name. As another absurdity, the “New Order” seem amazed how William was able to slay one of the creatures (thanks to the poleaxing ‘McGuffin’ previously referenced) but then throughout the rest of the film he slays creatures left right and centre (McGuffin-less) through just the use of a spear or an arrow! Bonkers.
Things get worse when you add words to the actions. The screenplay by Carlo Bernard and Doug Miro (both “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”) and Tony Gilroy (Tony Gilroy? Surely not he of all the “Bourne” films and “Rogue One” fame? The very same!) has a reading age of about an 8 year old. It feels like it has been translated into Chinese and then back again to English with Google Translate. “Is that the best you can do?” asks Tovar to William at one point. I was thinking exactly the same thing.
The combination of the cinematography and the special effects have the unfortunate effect of giving the film the veneer of a video game, but this is one where your kid-brother has stolen the controls and refuses to give them back to you.
Having had the great thrill of visiting a section of The Great Wall near Beijing, I can confirm that it is an astonishing engineering masterpiece that has to be seen to be truly believed. It ranks as one of the genuine wonders of the world. The same can not be said of this movie. Early teens might enjoy it as a mindless action flick. But otherwise best avoided until it emerges on a raining Sunday afternoon on the TV.
So is it really that bad?
Well, it’s no “Manchester by the Sea” for sure. But I don’t think it’s quite the total turkey that critics have been labelling it as either. I went to see it on a Sunday afternoon, and approaching it as a matinee bit of frothy action is a good mental state to be in.
Matt Damon plays the ponytailed-wonder William, a European mercenary travelling in 11th Century China with his colleague Tovar (Pedro Pascal) in an attempt to determine the secrets of black powder – a secret well-guarded by the Chinese. Captured by the ‘New Order’ at the Great Wall and imprisoned there by General Shao (Hanyu Zhang), William earns the respect of Shao and his beautiful warrior second-in-command Lin Mae (Tian Jing) with his bowmanship. This is almost immediately put to use by the arrival (after 60 year’s absence – a funny thing, timing, isn’t it?) of hoards of vicious creatures called Taoties. (I thought they said Tauntauns initially, so was expecting some sort of Chinese/Star Wars crossover! But no.)
Taoties who scale the wall are defeated by William who poleaxes them. (This is an attempt at brilliant humour to anyone who has already seen the film – poleaxe…. get it? POLEaxe. Oh, never mind!) Despite being a mercenary at heart, William is torn between staying and helping Lin Mae fight the beasts and fleeing with Tovar, their new chum Ballard (Willem Dafoe) and their black powder loot. (I’m sure something about Lin Mae’s tight-fitting blue armour was influential in his decision).
This is an historic film in that although in recent years there has been cross-fertilization of Chinese actors into Western films for box-office reasons (for example, in the appalling “Independence Day: Resurgence” and the much better Damon vehicle “The Martian“) this was the first truly co-produced Chinese/Hollywood feature filmed entirely in China. It might also be the last given the film’s $150 million budget and the dismal box-office!
To start with some positives, you can rely on a Chinese-set film (the film location was Qingdao) to allow the use of an army of extras and – although a whole bunch of CGI was also no doubt used – some of the battles scenes are impressive. There is a stirring choral theme by Ramin Djawadi (best known for his TV themes for “Game of Thrones” and the brilliant “Westworld”) played over silk-screen painted end titles that just make for a beautiful combination. And Tian Jing as the heroine Lin Mae is not only stunningly good-looking but also injects some much needed acting talent into the cast, where most of those involved (including Damon himself) look like they would rather be somewhere else.
And some of the action scenes are rather fun in a ‘park your brain by the door’ sort of way, including (nonsensically) cute warrior girls high-diving off the wall on bungey ropes to near certain death. While the CGI monsters are of the (yawn) over-the-top LoTR variety, their ability to swarm like locusts at the Queen’s command is also quite entertainingly rendered.
Where the movie balloon comes crashing down to earth in flames though is with the story and the screenplay – all done by three different people each, which is NEVER a good sign.
The story (by Max Brooks (“World War Z”), Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz (both on “The Last Samurai”) is plain nonsensical at times. No spoilers here, but the transition from “wall under siege” to “wall not under siege” gives the word ‘clunky’ a bad name. As another absurdity, the “New Order” seem amazed how William was able to slay one of the creatures (thanks to the poleaxing ‘McGuffin’ previously referenced) but then throughout the rest of the film he slays creatures left right and centre (McGuffin-less) through just the use of a spear or an arrow! Bonkers.
Things get worse when you add words to the actions. The screenplay by Carlo Bernard and Doug Miro (both “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”) and Tony Gilroy (Tony Gilroy? Surely not he of all the “Bourne” films and “Rogue One” fame? The very same!) has a reading age of about an 8 year old. It feels like it has been translated into Chinese and then back again to English with Google Translate. “Is that the best you can do?” asks Tovar to William at one point. I was thinking exactly the same thing.
The combination of the cinematography and the special effects have the unfortunate effect of giving the film the veneer of a video game, but this is one where your kid-brother has stolen the controls and refuses to give them back to you.
Having had the great thrill of visiting a section of The Great Wall near Beijing, I can confirm that it is an astonishing engineering masterpiece that has to be seen to be truly believed. It ranks as one of the genuine wonders of the world. The same can not be said of this movie. Early teens might enjoy it as a mindless action flick. But otherwise best avoided until it emerges on a raining Sunday afternoon on the TV.
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated Haunted (2013) in Movies
Jun 12, 2019
About As Scary As A Trip To Seaworld
Contains spoilers, click to show
Haunted, a film Directed by Steven M Smith is an unusual addition to anyone's 'film' collection, as instantly you question whether this is even a film to begin with, the content is very documentary based, opening with factual accounts and a history of an abandoned railway museum. All of the opening shots are filmed in documentary format and this continues throughout the film even when found footage elements are introduced.
A TV crew will film a paranormal investigation and obtain evidence that proves we are not alone. Something Evil awaits them! They will all discover the truth, that we are not alone.
The above quote is taken directly from the synopsis on the website, contestants are invited to visit a haunted railway as part of the show of which they are filming, they are all packed into a limousine and taken to the event. The whole scenes within the limo following the group around SHOULD of been filmed by a professional camera and a professional cinematographer but it looks as thou the entire film has been shot on someone's mobile phone.
Budget constraints aside, decent camera's should of been used to document the entire film from introduction to the actual paranormal investigations, rather than Sony handycam's that cost £120. The only time still camera's are used is to document an almost news style report at the start of the film and a few segments in between. Using handycams this instantly brings us into frustrating territory of moving shaky pictures, blurred images, and camera operators with shaky hands. Very poor quality recording even for a documentary style shooting as you're watching a black screen for the duration, has anyone ever heard of night vision? Next the acting, now the contestants themselves are not in on the game, they are not aware of what's going on or what they have signed up too, however Jon our 'medium' gives the game away at every opportunity. The strategically placed actor in the movie is Jon Paul Gates a supposed 'medium' who describes what he is feeling and how strong a presence is in a particular area. I personally would of caught on very easily to this poor display as not only was the acting questionable, but his descriptions of certain ghosts and characters were so detailed that it was obvious they had been memorised from a script or prior knowledge. There is one scene where the ghost is apparently on top of Jon as he is weighed to the ground, I found this scene hysterical, I was literally crying with laughter of how poor he not only acted it out but how a ghost was piggy backing a ride around the railway yard.
For the first 30 minutes of the movie, the group have arrived, walked around some railway tracks and picked up some weird force that only Jon can feel yet no one around the group has even felt or experienced anything out of this world. Now Most Haunted the popular paranormal TV show would of thrust the audience into some action by now but for the opening 30 minutes of Haunted, nothing of the sort has happened, as it stands the documentary as I refuse to call it a film has displayed more history about the railways than anything remotely paranormal. Maybe a title change would be for the best? I am neither scared, nor intrigued at this moment in time, quite frankly I'm hoping this heats up and soon.
I feel as thou if this film was cut shorter, much shorter, with a voice over documentary style about where each group is going and what they are doing it would be much more easier to watch. Cut the best bits in, jump scares, certain happenings, instead of mundane walking around a railway yard, because as it stands I could grab a camera, head off out tonight and shoot an identical piece of footage, its neither scary nor intriguing. It needs to have production value and Haunted is really suffering from a lack of it as a result.
There is one event throughout the whole movie which is the main talking point and then the film has the audacity to kill people off towards the end after a whole run time of nothingness, no build up, no real meaning or reason why. It was basically like watching the worst episode of Most Haunted to find one of your group dead on the floor at the end of it, planned, boring and drawn out far too long.
Shorten the run time, have a voice over, documentary coverage and film, DON'T kill anyone off at the end with some cheesy fake characters who no one now believes and have a genuine vigil, no pranks or set ups and this could of been a cool little paranormal programme.
Sadly none of the above happened. What a shame. A few sequels are in the works, shorten the duration, fix the countless problems and maybe, just maybe show some true paranormal / experiences and I guarantee it will be more of a success !
A TV crew will film a paranormal investigation and obtain evidence that proves we are not alone. Something Evil awaits them! They will all discover the truth, that we are not alone.
The above quote is taken directly from the synopsis on the website, contestants are invited to visit a haunted railway as part of the show of which they are filming, they are all packed into a limousine and taken to the event. The whole scenes within the limo following the group around SHOULD of been filmed by a professional camera and a professional cinematographer but it looks as thou the entire film has been shot on someone's mobile phone.
Budget constraints aside, decent camera's should of been used to document the entire film from introduction to the actual paranormal investigations, rather than Sony handycam's that cost £120. The only time still camera's are used is to document an almost news style report at the start of the film and a few segments in between. Using handycams this instantly brings us into frustrating territory of moving shaky pictures, blurred images, and camera operators with shaky hands. Very poor quality recording even for a documentary style shooting as you're watching a black screen for the duration, has anyone ever heard of night vision? Next the acting, now the contestants themselves are not in on the game, they are not aware of what's going on or what they have signed up too, however Jon our 'medium' gives the game away at every opportunity. The strategically placed actor in the movie is Jon Paul Gates a supposed 'medium' who describes what he is feeling and how strong a presence is in a particular area. I personally would of caught on very easily to this poor display as not only was the acting questionable, but his descriptions of certain ghosts and characters were so detailed that it was obvious they had been memorised from a script or prior knowledge. There is one scene where the ghost is apparently on top of Jon as he is weighed to the ground, I found this scene hysterical, I was literally crying with laughter of how poor he not only acted it out but how a ghost was piggy backing a ride around the railway yard.
For the first 30 minutes of the movie, the group have arrived, walked around some railway tracks and picked up some weird force that only Jon can feel yet no one around the group has even felt or experienced anything out of this world. Now Most Haunted the popular paranormal TV show would of thrust the audience into some action by now but for the opening 30 minutes of Haunted, nothing of the sort has happened, as it stands the documentary as I refuse to call it a film has displayed more history about the railways than anything remotely paranormal. Maybe a title change would be for the best? I am neither scared, nor intrigued at this moment in time, quite frankly I'm hoping this heats up and soon.
I feel as thou if this film was cut shorter, much shorter, with a voice over documentary style about where each group is going and what they are doing it would be much more easier to watch. Cut the best bits in, jump scares, certain happenings, instead of mundane walking around a railway yard, because as it stands I could grab a camera, head off out tonight and shoot an identical piece of footage, its neither scary nor intriguing. It needs to have production value and Haunted is really suffering from a lack of it as a result.
There is one event throughout the whole movie which is the main talking point and then the film has the audacity to kill people off towards the end after a whole run time of nothingness, no build up, no real meaning or reason why. It was basically like watching the worst episode of Most Haunted to find one of your group dead on the floor at the end of it, planned, boring and drawn out far too long.
Shorten the run time, have a voice over, documentary coverage and film, DON'T kill anyone off at the end with some cheesy fake characters who no one now believes and have a genuine vigil, no pranks or set ups and this could of been a cool little paranormal programme.
Sadly none of the above happened. What a shame. A few sequels are in the works, shorten the duration, fix the countless problems and maybe, just maybe show some true paranormal / experiences and I guarantee it will be more of a success !