Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Forever Purge (2021) in Movies
Feb 20, 2022
I'm definitely late to the party on this series, I watched The Purge in preparation for First Purge and really enjoyed both... and let's face it, there's nothing like some gratuitous violence to fill your evening!
The annual Purge comes and goes with the usual drama, with those locked up safely in their spacious homes watching the events on TV. When morning comes and they come out of hiding, they get a welcome they weren't expecting. A rogue movement has no time for the law, it's now the forever purge.
So, a section of the population has decided to rise up and take their power back the only way they know how, through violence... you always worry that films might hit a little too close to home... let's not delve into that topic too much though.
Josh Lucas feels like he's making a resurgence these days. I'm not sure how I feel about him in this sort of role though. Dylan Tucker isn't exactly an exciting character, he has a rather unbelievable arc through the film, and there's no point where I felt any sympathy for him.
A lot of the other characters have similar flaws, there's no one that's really memorable apart from maybe Ana de la Reguera as Adele. She has some interesting moments to do with her backstory, but there's never much of an in-depth look at any of it throughout the film.
The Purge was a great concept and I loved the way it was very focused on one environment. The First Purge had an interesting story and I liked having the inception of the idea unfold. But the trouble with The Forever Purge was that it was somehow too much and not enough all at the same time. There were moments that had a lot of potential for the characters but they were cut off before they managed to get anywhere.
I got the escalating amount of the mindless violence I was looking for, but it seemed to mainly just be "travelling" action. There wasn't anything particularly gripping about it, and it didn't hold up to the previous instalments of the franchise I've seen, and that was a real shame.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-forever-purge-movie-review.html
The annual Purge comes and goes with the usual drama, with those locked up safely in their spacious homes watching the events on TV. When morning comes and they come out of hiding, they get a welcome they weren't expecting. A rogue movement has no time for the law, it's now the forever purge.
So, a section of the population has decided to rise up and take their power back the only way they know how, through violence... you always worry that films might hit a little too close to home... let's not delve into that topic too much though.
Josh Lucas feels like he's making a resurgence these days. I'm not sure how I feel about him in this sort of role though. Dylan Tucker isn't exactly an exciting character, he has a rather unbelievable arc through the film, and there's no point where I felt any sympathy for him.
A lot of the other characters have similar flaws, there's no one that's really memorable apart from maybe Ana de la Reguera as Adele. She has some interesting moments to do with her backstory, but there's never much of an in-depth look at any of it throughout the film.
The Purge was a great concept and I loved the way it was very focused on one environment. The First Purge had an interesting story and I liked having the inception of the idea unfold. But the trouble with The Forever Purge was that it was somehow too much and not enough all at the same time. There were moments that had a lot of potential for the characters but they were cut off before they managed to get anywhere.
I got the escalating amount of the mindless violence I was looking for, but it seemed to mainly just be "travelling" action. There wasn't anything particularly gripping about it, and it didn't hold up to the previous instalments of the franchise I've seen, and that was a real shame.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-forever-purge-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Straight out of the blocks I want to say that there's excellent fluffy in the shape of a golden retriever puppy, and we also get some brilliant chompers in the form of an army of sharks... and you know how I feel about sharks.
The other thing I want to say, and I'm sorry in advance for the fact that it might annoy you if you haven't been to see it yet, but every wistful shot of the sky over the ocean seems to look like the Free Willy poster shot. Not even kidding. It was the first thing I thought when I saw it. Right there >>> they might have just photoshopped it in, I really don't know.
But I'm getting away from the reason I'm doing this... Aquaman.
I'm please to say that (as you can see from my rating) I thoroughly enjoyed this film. DC have really managed to pull it back. I was a firm believer that it was DC TV and Marvel films that were the winners, when they went off and tried the other side it wasn't such a success for either of them. DC seem to have found the magic formula though and hot on the trail of Wonder Woman and Justice League this feels like a real winner.
Yes I enjoyed Justice League, we're not going to argue about it now!
The attention to detail in the effects is impressive. You just have to look at all the minute details in the reflections on the glass to see that. We're also treated to a lot of ocean scenery that I'm sure you could comb over for hours and still not spot everything hidden in there.
There are moments where the effects become a little iffy though. The tremendous scene where Aquaman and Mera are being chased over roof tops for example. We get wide shots that leave little room to scrimp on the effort and they look visually stunning. At the same time though one of the bad guys is chasing Mera by running through the buildings below her and the graphics on him just don't hold the same impact at all.
Aquaman's underwater scenes actually didn't look a lot different than any normal film apart from the fact that everyone tends to be hovering in mid air/water with ballet pose toes. But just for a minute let us talk about the hair and the capes. Both floaty things in water. Both awful to look at on screen. It's bizarrely unnatural and really sticks out like a sore thumb from the first time you see it. At least it's not something that all the characters had, some of them had their hair tied back, and then they've got some kind of underwater hair gel (they could market that really well on land), both of those options gave scenes a little less distraction.
The first action sequence we get with Aquaman in the sub has some amazing camera work in it. We turn and flip with the characters following the motion of the body as it's being tossed around by our hero. It makes for an exciting scene, it's honestly not something I remember seeing in other films. This sequence also had a rather impressive use of a doorway as a lethal weapon.
While Aquaman is definitely a light-hearted superhero movie it does have it's deep moments. (And I'm not just talking about the ocean... no? Fine! No ridiculous jokes.) Manta and his father have a particularly moving moment that I wasn't expecting at all, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Michael Beach work so well together in that scene that it was a real shame it was over so quickly. Jason Momoa also gets some great speeches throughout the film, but in his case they are taken away from him at the last moment. I get it, he's an edgy no nonsense kind of a character that says it like it is. But let him just have one speech where he doesn't ruin it at the end by calling someone a dick.
Now I'll admit that it didn't hurt that this movie had some very attractive people in it that were wet a lot of the time... you know you were thinking it too! I do however want to call them out on their Bond-esque emerging from the water scene... it didn't work, find your own niche.
I'm honestly amazed at how many notes I wrote, I've got so many thing I want to talk about but honestly we'd be here all day so I'm just going to highlight the rest for your free interpretation: superhero landings, power slides, "little baby oceans", drumming octopus, killer narwhals?, bar montage, Ant-Man And The Wasp rip off credits, rip off Bifrost, stop pollution the oceans it's pissing off the Atlantians. Oh, and Julie Andrews was in it!
What you should do
This is a very good superhero movie. There's love, there's action, there's friendship, and more importantly they have a cute dog. You should definitely see it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I do love the water, so some Atlantian superpowers wouldn't go amiss. There's no way I currently look that graceful in the water.
The other thing I want to say, and I'm sorry in advance for the fact that it might annoy you if you haven't been to see it yet, but every wistful shot of the sky over the ocean seems to look like the Free Willy poster shot. Not even kidding. It was the first thing I thought when I saw it. Right there >>> they might have just photoshopped it in, I really don't know.
But I'm getting away from the reason I'm doing this... Aquaman.
I'm please to say that (as you can see from my rating) I thoroughly enjoyed this film. DC have really managed to pull it back. I was a firm believer that it was DC TV and Marvel films that were the winners, when they went off and tried the other side it wasn't such a success for either of them. DC seem to have found the magic formula though and hot on the trail of Wonder Woman and Justice League this feels like a real winner.
Yes I enjoyed Justice League, we're not going to argue about it now!
The attention to detail in the effects is impressive. You just have to look at all the minute details in the reflections on the glass to see that. We're also treated to a lot of ocean scenery that I'm sure you could comb over for hours and still not spot everything hidden in there.
There are moments where the effects become a little iffy though. The tremendous scene where Aquaman and Mera are being chased over roof tops for example. We get wide shots that leave little room to scrimp on the effort and they look visually stunning. At the same time though one of the bad guys is chasing Mera by running through the buildings below her and the graphics on him just don't hold the same impact at all.
Aquaman's underwater scenes actually didn't look a lot different than any normal film apart from the fact that everyone tends to be hovering in mid air/water with ballet pose toes. But just for a minute let us talk about the hair and the capes. Both floaty things in water. Both awful to look at on screen. It's bizarrely unnatural and really sticks out like a sore thumb from the first time you see it. At least it's not something that all the characters had, some of them had their hair tied back, and then they've got some kind of underwater hair gel (they could market that really well on land), both of those options gave scenes a little less distraction.
The first action sequence we get with Aquaman in the sub has some amazing camera work in it. We turn and flip with the characters following the motion of the body as it's being tossed around by our hero. It makes for an exciting scene, it's honestly not something I remember seeing in other films. This sequence also had a rather impressive use of a doorway as a lethal weapon.
While Aquaman is definitely a light-hearted superhero movie it does have it's deep moments. (And I'm not just talking about the ocean... no? Fine! No ridiculous jokes.) Manta and his father have a particularly moving moment that I wasn't expecting at all, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Michael Beach work so well together in that scene that it was a real shame it was over so quickly. Jason Momoa also gets some great speeches throughout the film, but in his case they are taken away from him at the last moment. I get it, he's an edgy no nonsense kind of a character that says it like it is. But let him just have one speech where he doesn't ruin it at the end by calling someone a dick.
Now I'll admit that it didn't hurt that this movie had some very attractive people in it that were wet a lot of the time... you know you were thinking it too! I do however want to call them out on their Bond-esque emerging from the water scene... it didn't work, find your own niche.
I'm honestly amazed at how many notes I wrote, I've got so many thing I want to talk about but honestly we'd be here all day so I'm just going to highlight the rest for your free interpretation: superhero landings, power slides, "little baby oceans", drumming octopus, killer narwhals?, bar montage, Ant-Man And The Wasp rip off credits, rip off Bifrost, stop pollution the oceans it's pissing off the Atlantians. Oh, and Julie Andrews was in it!
What you should do
This is a very good superhero movie. There's love, there's action, there's friendship, and more importantly they have a cute dog. You should definitely see it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I do love the water, so some Atlantian superpowers wouldn't go amiss. There's no way I currently look that graceful in the water.
Alice (12 KP) rated The Temptation of Dragons (Penny White #1) in Books
Jul 3, 2018
<i>Many thanks to the author Chrys Cymri for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review</i>
Original review can be found on my blog Raptureinbooks <a href="http://wp.me/p5y0lX-1Js">here</a href>
I was kindly offered this book by the author in exchange for an honest review and my initial impressions were "yeah this sounds like my kinda thing. Here there be dragons" ya know? Only to get more fully immersed in the book and find that I was a touch disappointed.
<i>The Temptation of Dragons</i> follows Reverend Penny White as she becomes the Vicar General of an alternate world called Lloegyr - please note that there is a heavy Welsh influence in this book coupled with an enormous religious influence - where dragons, unicorns, gryphons and more reside and coexist in relative peace.
The book starts with Penny White coming home slightly intoxicated and thinking she's going mad when she comes across a dying dragon. In true priestly form Penny gets out of her car and performs the last rites of absolution to what turns out to be a real dragon!
From that moment on Penny's life changes in so many ways - dragons exist, unicorns are real, snail sharks get drunk and gryphons are eating her garden birds. Penny is soon tasked to become the Vicar General to the citizens of Lloegyr and that includes all manner of supernatural beasties. Though expected as the main character is a priest, I didn't expect there to be such a heavy religious influence all throughout with literal verses from the Bible quoted on a regular.
Please understand that this is <b>not</b> anything against the book or against the writer and is merely my thoughts on what I considered an overly religious-toned story set in the wrong time period and the wrong world. I honestly found that the hardest part of reading this book but there were parts that I enjoyed for example: Penny White has what amounts to an obsession with sci-fi/fantasy and occult TV and movies, a lot of which were quite obscure for me (not really a TV and movie person *gasp*) I didn't get several of the references - particularly the Doctor Who ones.
Out of all of the characters my favourite had to be Moriarty - shortened to Morey for some reason - a 47-year-old gryphon with no filter. My favourite quote was from Penny about Morey:
<blockquote>"You've sent me a blue tit murdering creationist with sarcasm management issues."
"Correction. Today he's killing a starling."</blockquote>
The sarcasm and humour was rife throughout this book which was brilliant and gave it a nice light undertone to the ultimate seriousness of the book as a whole.
There was one character I didn't like and that was her brother James- I'm not 100% sure why but something about him rubbed me the wrong way. He's a free loading, insensitive toss pot and possibly a pod person.
However, despite my dislike of the heavy religious overtone and of James, I really, really liked <i>how</i> Chrys wrote the dragons and unicorns and all the other supernatural creatures and they had enough of a description without giving away too much important information; but also, on the flip side, there were away lot of unanswered questions such as how <i>exactly</i> does a unicorn use a telephone?
In all, it was a well written book with an interesting concept and some good characters and prose, dialogue was perfectly modern for Penny and a touch Olde World for a lot of the Lloegyr residents.
Original review can be found on my blog Raptureinbooks <a href="http://wp.me/p5y0lX-1Js">here</a href>
I was kindly offered this book by the author in exchange for an honest review and my initial impressions were "yeah this sounds like my kinda thing. Here there be dragons" ya know? Only to get more fully immersed in the book and find that I was a touch disappointed.
<i>The Temptation of Dragons</i> follows Reverend Penny White as she becomes the Vicar General of an alternate world called Lloegyr - please note that there is a heavy Welsh influence in this book coupled with an enormous religious influence - where dragons, unicorns, gryphons and more reside and coexist in relative peace.
The book starts with Penny White coming home slightly intoxicated and thinking she's going mad when she comes across a dying dragon. In true priestly form Penny gets out of her car and performs the last rites of absolution to what turns out to be a real dragon!
From that moment on Penny's life changes in so many ways - dragons exist, unicorns are real, snail sharks get drunk and gryphons are eating her garden birds. Penny is soon tasked to become the Vicar General to the citizens of Lloegyr and that includes all manner of supernatural beasties. Though expected as the main character is a priest, I didn't expect there to be such a heavy religious influence all throughout with literal verses from the Bible quoted on a regular.
Please understand that this is <b>not</b> anything against the book or against the writer and is merely my thoughts on what I considered an overly religious-toned story set in the wrong time period and the wrong world. I honestly found that the hardest part of reading this book but there were parts that I enjoyed for example: Penny White has what amounts to an obsession with sci-fi/fantasy and occult TV and movies, a lot of which were quite obscure for me (not really a TV and movie person *gasp*) I didn't get several of the references - particularly the Doctor Who ones.
Out of all of the characters my favourite had to be Moriarty - shortened to Morey for some reason - a 47-year-old gryphon with no filter. My favourite quote was from Penny about Morey:
<blockquote>"You've sent me a blue tit murdering creationist with sarcasm management issues."
"Correction. Today he's killing a starling."</blockquote>
The sarcasm and humour was rife throughout this book which was brilliant and gave it a nice light undertone to the ultimate seriousness of the book as a whole.
There was one character I didn't like and that was her brother James- I'm not 100% sure why but something about him rubbed me the wrong way. He's a free loading, insensitive toss pot and possibly a pod person.
However, despite my dislike of the heavy religious overtone and of James, I really, really liked <i>how</i> Chrys wrote the dragons and unicorns and all the other supernatural creatures and they had enough of a description without giving away too much important information; but also, on the flip side, there were away lot of unanswered questions such as how <i>exactly</i> does a unicorn use a telephone?
In all, it was a well written book with an interesting concept and some good characters and prose, dialogue was perfectly modern for Penny and a touch Olde World for a lot of the Lloegyr residents.
Story: 51 starts when the government are finally going to let people into Area 51 for the first time with Sam Whitaker (Shea) and new blogger Claire (Branch). Colonel Martin (Boxleitner) is showing the guests around the base with the idea of showing just the simple ones rather than the real secrets.
With the tour happening around the base we see how the aliens held there start their own escape. The tour group must work together to survive while the soldiers on the outside also have to deal with the aliens coming up the levels.
51 is a horror sci-fi film set inside Area 51, we actually get to see the idea that aliens have been trapped there for decades and most importantly we get to see different types of aliens. This helps play into the conspiracy side to the story very well. When it comes to the survival side of the story there isn’t too much fresh happening here but it does make you wonder what abilities each of these aliens actually has while the film unfolds.
Actor Review
Vanessa Branch: Claire is an internet reporter with a reputation of pushing the limits to make sure she breaks the story, she isn’t one of the Colonel’s first choices to be part of the tour but while she is here she will look to break the big story. Vanessa is a solid strong leading lady for this horror film.
Bruce Boxleitner: Col Martin is the man who has to lead the tour group around Area 51, he doesn’t like the idea and will try to make this the simplest tour possible giving away only small amounts of details. Bruce comes off like a normal colonel you would expect to see in thi style of film.
Rachel Miner: Sgt Hanna is on the outside guarding the base she leads the men while having her own troubled past and reputation to live up to. Rachel is solid in this role which feels like a completely different story to the main tour.
Jason London: Aaron ‘Shoes’ Schumacher is a rookie soldier that is under the wing of Sgt Hanna, he wants to see combat but has to deal with not having this chance for now. Jason is solid in this role where we do get a few extra laugh from this film.
Support Cast: 51 has a supporting cast which includes different of soldiers as well as the fellow reporters, each one comes off slightly disposable through the story.
Director Review: Jason Connery – Jason gives us a horror that has fresh twists while being the standard survival thriller.
Horror: 51 is filled with blood soaked kills throughout the survival horror side of the story.
Sci-Fi: 51 takes us to Area 51 with aliens trying to escape their prisons which heaps all of the sci-fi side of the story involved.
Settings: 51 is set at Area 51 for the whole film which plays into the conspiracy side of the story.
Special Effects: 51 has low budget effects which work once we see the aliens made with practical effects.
Suggestion: 51 is one I feel the horror fans out there can watch late night on TV and get the enjoyment out of it. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: Different types of aliens involved.
Worst Part: Hanna and Shoes storyline seems out of place and almost talking to audience early on.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $1 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Tagline: The military’s best-kept secret just broke loose.
Overall: Simple but enjoyable sci-fi horror film.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/11/04/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-51-2011/
With the tour happening around the base we see how the aliens held there start their own escape. The tour group must work together to survive while the soldiers on the outside also have to deal with the aliens coming up the levels.
51 is a horror sci-fi film set inside Area 51, we actually get to see the idea that aliens have been trapped there for decades and most importantly we get to see different types of aliens. This helps play into the conspiracy side to the story very well. When it comes to the survival side of the story there isn’t too much fresh happening here but it does make you wonder what abilities each of these aliens actually has while the film unfolds.
Actor Review
Vanessa Branch: Claire is an internet reporter with a reputation of pushing the limits to make sure she breaks the story, she isn’t one of the Colonel’s first choices to be part of the tour but while she is here she will look to break the big story. Vanessa is a solid strong leading lady for this horror film.
Bruce Boxleitner: Col Martin is the man who has to lead the tour group around Area 51, he doesn’t like the idea and will try to make this the simplest tour possible giving away only small amounts of details. Bruce comes off like a normal colonel you would expect to see in thi style of film.
Rachel Miner: Sgt Hanna is on the outside guarding the base she leads the men while having her own troubled past and reputation to live up to. Rachel is solid in this role which feels like a completely different story to the main tour.
Jason London: Aaron ‘Shoes’ Schumacher is a rookie soldier that is under the wing of Sgt Hanna, he wants to see combat but has to deal with not having this chance for now. Jason is solid in this role where we do get a few extra laugh from this film.
Support Cast: 51 has a supporting cast which includes different of soldiers as well as the fellow reporters, each one comes off slightly disposable through the story.
Director Review: Jason Connery – Jason gives us a horror that has fresh twists while being the standard survival thriller.
Horror: 51 is filled with blood soaked kills throughout the survival horror side of the story.
Sci-Fi: 51 takes us to Area 51 with aliens trying to escape their prisons which heaps all of the sci-fi side of the story involved.
Settings: 51 is set at Area 51 for the whole film which plays into the conspiracy side of the story.
Special Effects: 51 has low budget effects which work once we see the aliens made with practical effects.
Suggestion: 51 is one I feel the horror fans out there can watch late night on TV and get the enjoyment out of it. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: Different types of aliens involved.
Worst Part: Hanna and Shoes storyline seems out of place and almost talking to audience early on.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $1 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Tagline: The military’s best-kept secret just broke loose.
Overall: Simple but enjoyable sci-fi horror film.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/11/04/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-51-2011/
Paytm - Payments & Wallet
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
#PaytmKaro for the fastest recharge, bill payment & shopping experience. Quick, easy and secure,...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018) in Movies
Jan 18, 2019 (Updated Jan 18, 2019)
The Illusion of Choice
Contains spoilers, click to show
I should preface this review by saying a few things. First of all, I don't like Black Mirror. I have watched a handful of episodes from the first season and always felt like it wasn't as clever as it tried to be. I do however like Charlie Brooker, I am a fan of his 'Wipe,' shows and I like his no bullshit personality. Lastly, I am not a fan of games or books where the audience is asked to choose the path they want to take. I believe that the writer of the movie/game/book should be the one to dictate where the story goes, not Joe Bloggs sitting on his couch covered in Doritos powder.
With all of that said, I decided to give Bandersnatch a go last night. I was intrigued by the whole choose-your-own-adventure concept and did go in wanting to like this thing. Unfortunately, following all the hype that surrounded its release a few weeks ago, I came away pretty disappointed.
As for my spoiler free thoughts, I thought that Will Poulter was the best thing about this film and that Fionn Whitehead's performance was okay, but felt forced and cheesy at times. However, in order to discuss why Bandersnatch ultimately left me disappointed, I am going to have to spoil the movie, so if you haven't went through it for yourself yet, you should probably look away now.
3,2,1... SPOILERS!
So, it turns out that the choices that you make while watching the film don't really matter for the most part. After spending 2-3 hours with it, I discovered that there are only really 2 endings. Either Stefan kills his dad or he goes to the therapist and she breaks the fourth wall. Every other ending is not really an ending and forces you back into the last situation until you make the choice that the filmmakers clearly want you to make.
As we are pretty much controlling Stefan during the course of the story, I chose to pick the best decisions for him, rather than choosing the more cruel, sick settings just to see what would happen. However Bandersnatch doesn't want you to do that and as soon as you make one of these more pacifist decisions, it punishes you by giving you an anticlimactic non-ending and sends you back to your last decision. Being forced to make these destructive choices forces you down the narrative path set out by the writers to the two endings that I discussed earlier and that's your lot. That's really all that there is to see here other than a few surplus arbitrary scenes.
The only things that you really get to decide on is trivial nonsense that has no impact on the narrative, like what cereal to eat or what record to buy. So, why bother making this a choose-your-own-adventure story in the first place rather than just a regular episode of Black Mirror? Because, if this was just a regular episode of a TV show, it would be extremely fucking boring, monotonous and trite.
The show tries to defend itself in these aspects. It insinuates the idea that just as we are controlling Stefan and forcing him to make certain decisions, Charlie Brooker as the writer is controlling us and forcing us to make certain decisions, hence the absence of any real choice for the viewer. I call bullshit on this idea, it's just down to lazy writing to be honest. When the therapist breaks the fourth wall, she also suggests that if this was a TV show that someone was watching for entertainment, it would have to be more exciting and less bland and dull. Pointing out that your show is bland and dull doesn't save it from being just as fucking bland and dull as it would be if you hadn't highlighted it in your script.
The show puts these elements in so that when it is questioned, it can respond saying that you as an audience member are just not clever enough to get it. Unfortunately the fact is that Bandersnatch, - just like Black Mirror - before it, isn't as clever or as cool as it thinks it is and works far better as an idea than it does in execution.
Overall, that's what this is; it's a cool idea executed poorly. I really wish that they had done more with it. It does seem to be a hit though, so for better or worse we can probably expect to see more and more of these crop up on Netflix. Will Poulter was the one saving grace of this thing and he inexplicably vanishes halfway through the story in most of the threads. It did get a reaction out of me though, which is probably what Brooker and his team wanted, it was just an extremely negative reaction due to the realisation that I had wasted my time going through this thing. If you like Black Mirror, you will probably enjoy this, but I'm afraid that it's just not for me.
With all of that said, I decided to give Bandersnatch a go last night. I was intrigued by the whole choose-your-own-adventure concept and did go in wanting to like this thing. Unfortunately, following all the hype that surrounded its release a few weeks ago, I came away pretty disappointed.
As for my spoiler free thoughts, I thought that Will Poulter was the best thing about this film and that Fionn Whitehead's performance was okay, but felt forced and cheesy at times. However, in order to discuss why Bandersnatch ultimately left me disappointed, I am going to have to spoil the movie, so if you haven't went through it for yourself yet, you should probably look away now.
3,2,1... SPOILERS!
So, it turns out that the choices that you make while watching the film don't really matter for the most part. After spending 2-3 hours with it, I discovered that there are only really 2 endings. Either Stefan kills his dad or he goes to the therapist and she breaks the fourth wall. Every other ending is not really an ending and forces you back into the last situation until you make the choice that the filmmakers clearly want you to make.
As we are pretty much controlling Stefan during the course of the story, I chose to pick the best decisions for him, rather than choosing the more cruel, sick settings just to see what would happen. However Bandersnatch doesn't want you to do that and as soon as you make one of these more pacifist decisions, it punishes you by giving you an anticlimactic non-ending and sends you back to your last decision. Being forced to make these destructive choices forces you down the narrative path set out by the writers to the two endings that I discussed earlier and that's your lot. That's really all that there is to see here other than a few surplus arbitrary scenes.
The only things that you really get to decide on is trivial nonsense that has no impact on the narrative, like what cereal to eat or what record to buy. So, why bother making this a choose-your-own-adventure story in the first place rather than just a regular episode of Black Mirror? Because, if this was just a regular episode of a TV show, it would be extremely fucking boring, monotonous and trite.
The show tries to defend itself in these aspects. It insinuates the idea that just as we are controlling Stefan and forcing him to make certain decisions, Charlie Brooker as the writer is controlling us and forcing us to make certain decisions, hence the absence of any real choice for the viewer. I call bullshit on this idea, it's just down to lazy writing to be honest. When the therapist breaks the fourth wall, she also suggests that if this was a TV show that someone was watching for entertainment, it would have to be more exciting and less bland and dull. Pointing out that your show is bland and dull doesn't save it from being just as fucking bland and dull as it would be if you hadn't highlighted it in your script.
The show puts these elements in so that when it is questioned, it can respond saying that you as an audience member are just not clever enough to get it. Unfortunately the fact is that Bandersnatch, - just like Black Mirror - before it, isn't as clever or as cool as it thinks it is and works far better as an idea than it does in execution.
Overall, that's what this is; it's a cool idea executed poorly. I really wish that they had done more with it. It does seem to be a hit though, so for better or worse we can probably expect to see more and more of these crop up on Netflix. Will Poulter was the one saving grace of this thing and he inexplicably vanishes halfway through the story in most of the threads. It did get a reaction out of me though, which is probably what Brooker and his team wanted, it was just an extremely negative reaction due to the realisation that I had wasted my time going through this thing. If you like Black Mirror, you will probably enjoy this, but I'm afraid that it's just not for me.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
After moving to a new city, young Andy Barclay receives a special present from his mother. A seemingly innocent Buddi doll that becomes his best friend. When the doll suddenly takes on a life of its own, Andy unites with other neighborhood children to stop the sinister toy from wreaking bloody havoc.
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Sweet Tooth in TV
Jun 23, 2021
Story/Plot (2 more)
Actors/acting
Music/Soundtrack
For some the rating being TV-14 (1 more)
Some of the CGI
A Lot of Heart and A Great Story, That Lives Up To The Hype
https://youtu.be/3vw5Un4qmU8
Sweet Tooth is an awesome show. I was pretty excited for this show when I saw the trailer and what it was going to be about. That's because shows and cartoons that have to do with anthropomorphic animal people have a special place in my heart. I think it's because of my love of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up and also because of all the Disney cartoons with talking animals I watched as a kid. Anyways, I really dug this show and thought that it was excellent. I though the casting was pretty spot on for what they were trying to go with and there was some really good acting in this series. I for one, couldn't really see Will Forte as a father before this movie, but he did such a great job as Pubba/Richard Fox Gus's father. I also liked Adeel Akhtar who played Dr. Singh. His performance was really good and I liked his character more than I thought I would. He brought a lot of emotion to his character and his facial expressions really said a lot without having to say it in words. The cinematography was excellent, and there were a lot of this epic shots. Some of the ones I remember the most are these ones from the beginning of episodes showing the scenery like the forest and mountains and others of the cities and just ones where they were really zoomed out showing how big the world is. The plot for me was very interesting because of the whole mystery to it and it being two-fold with the mystery of the virus and then the one of the hybrids. There was the whole speculation on whether the two were related or not and what they had to do with each other if anything. I also liked how even though Gus is the main character, the plot turned into three main storylines following the characters of Gus, Dr. Singh and then Aimee Eden/Dania Ramirez. Aimee Eden is a lady who takes in abandoned hybrids to her sanctuary/orphanage that she creates. I love Dania Ramirez as an actress and you've probably seen her in the shows and movies she's been in like one of my all time favorites, the show Heroes and movies like X-Men: Last Stand, Premium Rush and American Reunion. The soundtrack for the show was really good and very fitting in setting the mood and there were a couple of good songs that stuck out for me like the songs "Dirty Paws" by Of Monsters and Men and "Dancing in the Moonlight" by King Harvest. It seems like the show has a few different themes and they are pretty powerful and universal. One of them is how society shows prejudice, hatred, and fear to those who are different. The series has a generally good atmosphere and mood but I like how the vibe changes in key moments and they do a good job of setting tension in certain spots like when the man approaches the fence near Gus' home in the first episode. The special effects and CGI were decent but nothing spectacular in my opinion from what I remember. There were a couple that could have been better but nothing terribly horrible. The dialogue seemed pretty natural and nothing that stuck out as unusual or something that seemed better on paper or unnatural being said for most of the characters. It was rated TV-14 so for a show that had some mature themes it kind of shies away from the more extreme actions of the plot which I know some people will criticize but I thought it had enough things going on action wise and didn't need to be overly violent or graphic. That being said, I've never read the comic and don't know how it compares to the source material. I thought the editing was rather good and the scenes transitioned well. I especially liked the narration that comes out in the episodes which took me until the end of the season to find out it was actually the voice of Josh Brolin. The pacing was good as well and I liked the way this show places the flashbacks and scenes of the past while still going forward plot wise in the story. I have to say that my favorite character so far is probably the girl called Bear. She's really interesting and has a really cool introduction to the show when she appears. Well that's going to do it for this review, Sweet Tooth is a an awesome show and I give it a 9/10 and it definitely gets my "Must See Seal of Approval". It's on Netflix, so if you haven't seen it yet, you need to give this show a watch.
If you want to read the spoiler review section for my review, check it out on my website by clicking on the link below.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/sweet-tooth-tv-series-review-9-10-a-lot-of-heart-and-a-great-story-that-lives-up-to-the-hype
Sweet Tooth is an awesome show. I was pretty excited for this show when I saw the trailer and what it was going to be about. That's because shows and cartoons that have to do with anthropomorphic animal people have a special place in my heart. I think it's because of my love of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up and also because of all the Disney cartoons with talking animals I watched as a kid. Anyways, I really dug this show and thought that it was excellent. I though the casting was pretty spot on for what they were trying to go with and there was some really good acting in this series. I for one, couldn't really see Will Forte as a father before this movie, but he did such a great job as Pubba/Richard Fox Gus's father. I also liked Adeel Akhtar who played Dr. Singh. His performance was really good and I liked his character more than I thought I would. He brought a lot of emotion to his character and his facial expressions really said a lot without having to say it in words. The cinematography was excellent, and there were a lot of this epic shots. Some of the ones I remember the most are these ones from the beginning of episodes showing the scenery like the forest and mountains and others of the cities and just ones where they were really zoomed out showing how big the world is. The plot for me was very interesting because of the whole mystery to it and it being two-fold with the mystery of the virus and then the one of the hybrids. There was the whole speculation on whether the two were related or not and what they had to do with each other if anything. I also liked how even though Gus is the main character, the plot turned into three main storylines following the characters of Gus, Dr. Singh and then Aimee Eden/Dania Ramirez. Aimee Eden is a lady who takes in abandoned hybrids to her sanctuary/orphanage that she creates. I love Dania Ramirez as an actress and you've probably seen her in the shows and movies she's been in like one of my all time favorites, the show Heroes and movies like X-Men: Last Stand, Premium Rush and American Reunion. The soundtrack for the show was really good and very fitting in setting the mood and there were a couple of good songs that stuck out for me like the songs "Dirty Paws" by Of Monsters and Men and "Dancing in the Moonlight" by King Harvest. It seems like the show has a few different themes and they are pretty powerful and universal. One of them is how society shows prejudice, hatred, and fear to those who are different. The series has a generally good atmosphere and mood but I like how the vibe changes in key moments and they do a good job of setting tension in certain spots like when the man approaches the fence near Gus' home in the first episode. The special effects and CGI were decent but nothing spectacular in my opinion from what I remember. There were a couple that could have been better but nothing terribly horrible. The dialogue seemed pretty natural and nothing that stuck out as unusual or something that seemed better on paper or unnatural being said for most of the characters. It was rated TV-14 so for a show that had some mature themes it kind of shies away from the more extreme actions of the plot which I know some people will criticize but I thought it had enough things going on action wise and didn't need to be overly violent or graphic. That being said, I've never read the comic and don't know how it compares to the source material. I thought the editing was rather good and the scenes transitioned well. I especially liked the narration that comes out in the episodes which took me until the end of the season to find out it was actually the voice of Josh Brolin. The pacing was good as well and I liked the way this show places the flashbacks and scenes of the past while still going forward plot wise in the story. I have to say that my favorite character so far is probably the girl called Bear. She's really interesting and has a really cool introduction to the show when she appears. Well that's going to do it for this review, Sweet Tooth is a an awesome show and I give it a 9/10 and it definitely gets my "Must See Seal of Approval". It's on Netflix, so if you haven't seen it yet, you need to give this show a watch.
If you want to read the spoiler review section for my review, check it out on my website by clicking on the link below.
https://cobracharliecr.wixsite.com/charliecobrareviews/post/sweet-tooth-tv-series-review-9-10-a-lot-of-heart-and-a-great-story-that-lives-up-to-the-hype
Kyera (8 KP) rated Unborn (Unborn, #1) in Books
Feb 1, 2018
I was incredibly and pleasantly (surprised) autopsied by this novel. Don't get me wrong, there are a number of things that leave the reader wanting more (and not in a good way), but overall it was well thought out.
There is a prevalent element of mythology in this novel. Aspects of Greek mythology like the Underworld, Hades, Ares, and other (demi-)godly players are rampant throughout the story. But, it's combined with the (fallen) angels and heaven of religious mythology and stories. It's a strange combination that doesn't lend itself to logical commingling, although it worked relatively well here. Perhaps I'm just biased because I adore the mythology in all cultures.
My highest praise for this novel is the writing quality, not the characters, world, or plot - just the simple allure of a book that's written in proper, intelligent English. A surprising rarity in Y.A. books. The author has a wonderful command of the English language and uses vocabulary that make a reader wonder, "What does that mean?" I love books that will chose to use words strode or sauntered, rather than another banal alternative when expressing how someone made their way down the street. You want them to reference a thesaurus to make their lexicon as diverse as possible. No one wants to hear, he said, she said, they said over and over. Perhaps they shouted, or she bit back her words? Anything to give the story real depth and reality.
The shortcomings? Character development and world building. Don't get me wrong, it was certainly there but not as well thought out as it should have been. Relationships were crafted much more quickly than reasonably could be expected and it created a sense of falseness. If more attention had been given to those two aspects, it would have been a strong 4-star rating (rather than my 3/4 rating.)
Another trait of a good story, be it in a book, movie, tv show, or something else is lack of predictability. If you can guess what it going to happen in the story from just the first 50 pages, than it seems less appealing to continue. On this account, the author both confirmed my suspicions and utterly surprised me. Not long into my reading, I was jotting down notes and thoughts as I felt a situation professing. I wanted to have quotes, events, and feelings to reference later - especially if my expectations were fufilled. The end of the book on the other hand - completely unexpected.
There is a prevalent element of mythology in this novel. Aspects of Greek mythology like the Underworld, Hades, Ares, and other (demi-)godly players are rampant throughout the story. But, it's combined with the (fallen) angels and heaven of religious mythology and stories. It's a strange combination that doesn't lend itself to logical commingling, although it worked relatively well here. Perhaps I'm just biased because I adore the mythology in all cultures.
My highest praise for this novel is the writing quality, not the characters, world, or plot - just the simple allure of a book that's written in proper, intelligent English. A surprising rarity in Y.A. books. The author has a wonderful command of the English language and uses vocabulary that make a reader wonder, "What does that mean?" I love books that will chose to use words strode or sauntered, rather than another banal alternative when expressing how someone made their way down the street. You want them to reference a thesaurus to make their lexicon as diverse as possible. No one wants to hear, he said, she said, they said over and over. Perhaps they shouted, or she bit back her words? Anything to give the story real depth and reality.
The shortcomings? Character development and world building. Don't get me wrong, it was certainly there but not as well thought out as it should have been. Relationships were crafted much more quickly than reasonably could be expected and it created a sense of falseness. If more attention had been given to those two aspects, it would have been a strong 4-star rating (rather than my 3/4 rating.)
Another trait of a good story, be it in a book, movie, tv show, or something else is lack of predictability. If you can guess what it going to happen in the story from just the first 50 pages, than it seems less appealing to continue. On this account, the author both confirmed my suspicions and utterly surprised me. Not long into my reading, I was jotting down notes and thoughts as I felt a situation professing. I wanted to have quotes, events, and feelings to reference later - especially if my expectations were fufilled. The end of the book on the other hand - completely unexpected.