Search
Search results
_RainAllTheTime (17 KP) rated The Wild Thornberrys Movie (2002) in Movies
Jan 13, 2021
The Thornberry's were the ultimate family goals. I wanted to be Eliza when I grew up. This film is very close to my heart.
The Thornberry's are a family that travel the world while the parents film their nature documentary.
In the tv series, Eliza, the youngest daughter, saves a warthog who was actually a shaman in disguise. For saving him, he grants Eliza the power to talk to animals but she can't tell another human about her powers.
Along the way, she finds Darwin, a chimpanzee, who quickly becomes her best friend and ends up living and traveling with the family.
In the film, while they are in Africa, Eliza is playing with three cheetah cubs she knows. While playing, one of the cubs, Tally, is taken by poachers. Eliza tries to get Tally from the poachers, who are in a helicopter but they cut the rope ladder and Eliza falls (fortunately safely, onto the family's RV).
Eliza blames herself for all of it and as the film goes on, Eliza does everything in her path to save Tally.
This film was made in 2002 and today is still so important. The storyline shows how important it is to protect our wildlife, no matter what country you live in, and to stop poachers.
I first watched this film as a kid, watching it countless times through my childhood. Watching it now as an adult was a whole new experience. You can appreciate the maturity of the storyline and even though I haven't watched the film in years, it's a film that has stuck with me. Even now, while rewatching it, I could still remember every detail, just this time I truly felt the story.
And yes, I cried. Sad tears and happy tears
The Thornberry's are a family that travel the world while the parents film their nature documentary.
In the tv series, Eliza, the youngest daughter, saves a warthog who was actually a shaman in disguise. For saving him, he grants Eliza the power to talk to animals but she can't tell another human about her powers.
Along the way, she finds Darwin, a chimpanzee, who quickly becomes her best friend and ends up living and traveling with the family.
In the film, while they are in Africa, Eliza is playing with three cheetah cubs she knows. While playing, one of the cubs, Tally, is taken by poachers. Eliza tries to get Tally from the poachers, who are in a helicopter but they cut the rope ladder and Eliza falls (fortunately safely, onto the family's RV).
Eliza blames herself for all of it and as the film goes on, Eliza does everything in her path to save Tally.
This film was made in 2002 and today is still so important. The storyline shows how important it is to protect our wildlife, no matter what country you live in, and to stop poachers.
I first watched this film as a kid, watching it countless times through my childhood. Watching it now as an adult was a whole new experience. You can appreciate the maturity of the storyline and even though I haven't watched the film in years, it's a film that has stuck with me. Even now, while rewatching it, I could still remember every detail, just this time I truly felt the story.
And yes, I cried. Sad tears and happy tears
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2103 KP) rated Fatal Cajun Festival in Books
Sep 13, 2019
Murder Isn’t Music to Maggie’s Ears
Maggie Crozat’s grand-mere has come up with the idea of Pelican, Louisiana, holding a musical festival in the days leading up to New Orleans’s famous Jazz Fest. Tammy Barker, a native who has gained fame as the winner of the TV singing competition, has agreed to return to headline the event. This isn’t good news for Maggie’s friend, Gaynell, however. Gaynell and Tammy went to high school together, and Tammy seems to have it out for her, even sabotaging Gaynell’s shot at auditioning for Jazz Fest. So when a murder takes place after Tammy’s set opening night of the festival, all eyes are on Gaynell. Can Maggie clear her friend?
This is the fifth book in the series, and it was wonderful to get to visit our friends in Pelican again. Maggie leads a strong cast. While there are quite a few regulars plus the suspects, I didn’t have any trouble keeping the characters straight while I was reading. However, there is a handy character guide in the front of the book if you do need it. The plot is strong with a couple of equally as strong sub-plots to keep the pages turning. I especially enjoyed a sub-plot involving Grand-mere. The twists and turns lead us to a logical climax. My only complaint is how Maggie works with the police, but it was a minor issue overall. We get five recipes and some fun background on things we learn in the story at the end of the book. I always feel like I’ve visited Louisiana when I read one of these books, and this one is no expectation. Fans old and new will be glad they picked it up.
This is the fifth book in the series, and it was wonderful to get to visit our friends in Pelican again. Maggie leads a strong cast. While there are quite a few regulars plus the suspects, I didn’t have any trouble keeping the characters straight while I was reading. However, there is a handy character guide in the front of the book if you do need it. The plot is strong with a couple of equally as strong sub-plots to keep the pages turning. I especially enjoyed a sub-plot involving Grand-mere. The twists and turns lead us to a logical climax. My only complaint is how Maggie works with the police, but it was a minor issue overall. We get five recipes and some fun background on things we learn in the story at the end of the book. I always feel like I’ve visited Louisiana when I read one of these books, and this one is no expectation. Fans old and new will be glad they picked it up.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Justice League: War (2014) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
February 4th saw the release of another Warner Bros. Animation film in the
Justice League franchise titled ‘War.’ DC Comics is continuing to bolster
its brand with regular animated releases, and they are doing a great job.
The film opens as an obvious origin story. Fans of the previous animated
films or TV series will notice some overt departures from the standard fare
of the last few years.
Green Lantern (Hal Jordan) and Batman lead off the film with their first
meeting in Gotham City, working quickly to solve a strange spree of
criminal abductions. As the two broker a tenuous peace and learn to work
together, they realize the Mother Box they found is linked to others like
it, and they head to Metropolis.
Wonder Woman, on her way to meet the President of the United States,
encounters winged beasts similar to ones fought by Green Lantern, Batman,
and Superman. What’s unusual is that this time she uses a sword to
dispatch her enemies. It’s something I’ve rarely seen in previous comics
or animated works.
The Flash, Shazam, and Cyborg all make appearances, and the team’s
structure gradually comes together. Meanwhile, the villain reveals himself:
Darkseid (who is one of my favorite DC villains).
This story is told wonderfully, with great action sequences and voice
acting (Sean Astin and Alan Tudyk – notable names). Overall, I was pleased
and entertained.
That said, there are a few major oddities within the film that stuck out as
strong deviations from the norm.
First, Superman kills someone. Despite the circumstances, I was still
shocked to see his character taken in that direction.
Second, somebody drops the S-bomb. I’ve never seen swearing in a “young
adult” film before, and though it was only used once, I was still taken
aback.
Third, the portrayal of Darkseid. He’s a great villain because of his
physical prowess, omega beams, and intellect. The first two were
represented in fine fashion, but the last was woefully lacking. Nothing
about this film showcased his intellect at all.
Fourth, Shazam seems to favor his lightening powers over his physical
assaults, which again, is in contradiction to most other comics and
animations.
While I found all of these examples strange and uncharacteristic with
respect to the usual formula, none of them were significant enough to be
considered a problem. I’m curious to see where this new trend goes. Will
DC use this as a platform to start a new chain of films or TV shows? Will
the language and body count continue to escalate? These are questions for
the ages.
Bottom line: if you are a fan of the genre, please watch it. You won’t be
disappointed.
Justice League franchise titled ‘War.’ DC Comics is continuing to bolster
its brand with regular animated releases, and they are doing a great job.
The film opens as an obvious origin story. Fans of the previous animated
films or TV series will notice some overt departures from the standard fare
of the last few years.
Green Lantern (Hal Jordan) and Batman lead off the film with their first
meeting in Gotham City, working quickly to solve a strange spree of
criminal abductions. As the two broker a tenuous peace and learn to work
together, they realize the Mother Box they found is linked to others like
it, and they head to Metropolis.
Wonder Woman, on her way to meet the President of the United States,
encounters winged beasts similar to ones fought by Green Lantern, Batman,
and Superman. What’s unusual is that this time she uses a sword to
dispatch her enemies. It’s something I’ve rarely seen in previous comics
or animated works.
The Flash, Shazam, and Cyborg all make appearances, and the team’s
structure gradually comes together. Meanwhile, the villain reveals himself:
Darkseid (who is one of my favorite DC villains).
This story is told wonderfully, with great action sequences and voice
acting (Sean Astin and Alan Tudyk – notable names). Overall, I was pleased
and entertained.
That said, there are a few major oddities within the film that stuck out as
strong deviations from the norm.
First, Superman kills someone. Despite the circumstances, I was still
shocked to see his character taken in that direction.
Second, somebody drops the S-bomb. I’ve never seen swearing in a “young
adult” film before, and though it was only used once, I was still taken
aback.
Third, the portrayal of Darkseid. He’s a great villain because of his
physical prowess, omega beams, and intellect. The first two were
represented in fine fashion, but the last was woefully lacking. Nothing
about this film showcased his intellect at all.
Fourth, Shazam seems to favor his lightening powers over his physical
assaults, which again, is in contradiction to most other comics and
animations.
While I found all of these examples strange and uncharacteristic with
respect to the usual formula, none of them were significant enough to be
considered a problem. I’m curious to see where this new trend goes. Will
DC use this as a platform to start a new chain of films or TV shows? Will
the language and body count continue to escalate? These are questions for
the ages.
Bottom line: if you are a fan of the genre, please watch it. You won’t be
disappointed.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated A Charmed Death (A Bewitching Mystery, #2) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
This second installment of the Bewitching Mystery series focuses on the murder of a popular teenage girl who may have been hiding a seedy secret or two. Maggie delves into the case, while also developing her newfound powers and going on her first N.I.G.H.T.S. investigation.
After the slow-moving first seventy to eighty pages that was mostly background information on the town, the shop, characters and a recap of the last book, the story actually moved onto the main mystery in this book. I found the mystery very intriguing and well-done (I could easily envision it on TV, heck, I wouldn't be surprised if I had seen a similar story-line), and the author shed more light on Marcus, which was nice, but was also detrimental to other secondary characters, namely Felicity (a.k.a. Liss, which the first time Maggie mentioned that nickname I forgot for a minute who she was referring too. That probably should have been clarified more, I may have read the first book less than a month ago, but I can't remember everything and it's not like it's Melissa/Liss which I would have picked up on immediately. :P). So less Felicity, and also Steff and Tom, surprisingly enough. Any interaction Maggie had with Tom was strained, sometimes strange, and there was a bit at the end I didn't buy in regards to the two of them. Maggie herself was exactly the same as in the first book, except a bit dumber but I'll come to that a moment, so that disappointed me. It's not as if I expect her to grow every book, but a little development here and there or something new we didn't know about her wouldn't hurt. Although her development of her 'powers' has been nicely and realistically done, and the only problem I had was a scene at the end that seemed more magic than magick. Now we come to Maggie doing a couple of stupid things I never thought she'd be dumb enough to do, one of which led to her 'showdown' with the murderer. In that instance, she really had no need to do what she did to get him/her arrested or for any reason. It just seemed a contrivance to put her in the murderer's path. Overall, after the first fourth or so of the book, it was a decent yet flawed read, and I am going to pick up the next in the series with the hope that any minor problems I had will have been just a fluke.
After the slow-moving first seventy to eighty pages that was mostly background information on the town, the shop, characters and a recap of the last book, the story actually moved onto the main mystery in this book. I found the mystery very intriguing and well-done (I could easily envision it on TV, heck, I wouldn't be surprised if I had seen a similar story-line), and the author shed more light on Marcus, which was nice, but was also detrimental to other secondary characters, namely Felicity (a.k.a. Liss, which the first time Maggie mentioned that nickname I forgot for a minute who she was referring too. That probably should have been clarified more, I may have read the first book less than a month ago, but I can't remember everything and it's not like it's Melissa/Liss which I would have picked up on immediately. :P). So less Felicity, and also Steff and Tom, surprisingly enough. Any interaction Maggie had with Tom was strained, sometimes strange, and there was a bit at the end I didn't buy in regards to the two of them. Maggie herself was exactly the same as in the first book, except a bit dumber but I'll come to that a moment, so that disappointed me. It's not as if I expect her to grow every book, but a little development here and there or something new we didn't know about her wouldn't hurt. Although her development of her 'powers' has been nicely and realistically done, and the only problem I had was a scene at the end that seemed more magic than magick. Now we come to Maggie doing a couple of stupid things I never thought she'd be dumb enough to do, one of which led to her 'showdown' with the murderer. In that instance, she really had no need to do what she did to get him/her arrested or for any reason. It just seemed a contrivance to put her in the murderer's path. Overall, after the first fourth or so of the book, it was a decent yet flawed read, and I am going to pick up the next in the series with the hope that any minor problems I had will have been just a fluke.
Kyera (8 KP) rated City of Heavenly Fire in Books
Jan 31, 2018
The conclusion to the Mortal Instruments was certainly a pleasing one. There is nothing worse than reading a great book or series, or perhaps watching a tv show that creates a multitude of story lines... And then fails to resolve them. It leaves the reader with a sense of dismay and confusion. What happened to my favourite character? Did the problem ever get resolved? No one likes that feeling.
Cassandra Clare did a wonderful job of making the reader feel like the series had all of its loose ends tied up. People found or lost their loves. Villains plotted and heroes fought. It was beautiful. (And incredibly long.) I never found myself drifting from the text, although I love long books, so I may be biased. Each change of scene held my attention and I was loathe to put the book down each night to go to sleep. While I am sure that there were some scenes or dialogue that could have been trimmed to improve the flow of the novel, I never found those things distracting to me as the reader.
I also praise Cassandra Clare for the way she writes her dialogue. The characters seem so much more realistic as a result. I find myself laughing at the jokes or smirking when Jace or Clary say something snarky/sarcastic. I'm left with lines or quotes that I absolutely love (and save to my goodreads quotes.)
SPOILERS:
I love Jace and Clary's relationship. They are supportive of one another, and I believe bring out the best in the other. But they are not perfect, which makes the coupling that much more authentic. You relate to Clary (unless you're a brunette bombshell, Izzy, or you know... Excessively hairy and prone to outbursts when the moon is full, Maia) because she is authentic. She has her selfish moments, times when she is incredibly strong and others when she's unbelievably stubborn. Jace is the guy you wish actually existed because he's strong, protective, and maybe, when he lets his guard down, just a little bit sensitive.
I'm just wondering one thing - why did Jace expect to have sex (for the first time, mind you) with Clary in the demon dimension? The one they expected to die in. Boys.
Izzy and Simon? Well they don't make as much sense, but are still cute together in their own way. Simon is generally the perfect sidekick. The best friend you always wanted and sometimes the one you never knew you needed. Izzy is the female archetype that you should live up to - tough, courageous, and loyal.
Cassandra Clare did a wonderful job of making the reader feel like the series had all of its loose ends tied up. People found or lost their loves. Villains plotted and heroes fought. It was beautiful. (And incredibly long.) I never found myself drifting from the text, although I love long books, so I may be biased. Each change of scene held my attention and I was loathe to put the book down each night to go to sleep. While I am sure that there were some scenes or dialogue that could have been trimmed to improve the flow of the novel, I never found those things distracting to me as the reader.
I also praise Cassandra Clare for the way she writes her dialogue. The characters seem so much more realistic as a result. I find myself laughing at the jokes or smirking when Jace or Clary say something snarky/sarcastic. I'm left with lines or quotes that I absolutely love (and save to my goodreads quotes.)
SPOILERS:
I love Jace and Clary's relationship. They are supportive of one another, and I believe bring out the best in the other. But they are not perfect, which makes the coupling that much more authentic. You relate to Clary (unless you're a brunette bombshell, Izzy, or you know... Excessively hairy and prone to outbursts when the moon is full, Maia) because she is authentic. She has her selfish moments, times when she is incredibly strong and others when she's unbelievably stubborn. Jace is the guy you wish actually existed because he's strong, protective, and maybe, when he lets his guard down, just a little bit sensitive.
I'm just wondering one thing - why did Jace expect to have sex (for the first time, mind you) with Clary in the demon dimension? The one they expected to die in. Boys.
Izzy and Simon? Well they don't make as much sense, but are still cute together in their own way. Simon is generally the perfect sidekick. The best friend you always wanted and sometimes the one you never knew you needed. Izzy is the female archetype that you should live up to - tough, courageous, and loyal.
Brown_Flopsy (3 KP) rated Thirteen Reasons Why: (TV Tie-in) in Books
Feb 4, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a school librarian and in light of the recent Netflix adaptation of this book, I felt that I should read it.
Firstly, I don't think this book actively promotes suicide. I actually think it is the intention of the author to make us think about how our actions affect other people's lives. It is not about revenge. It is about changing your actions...making time to talk to that person you think may need someone to talk to....being kinder. Listening to the tapes makes Clay appreciate that a person's actions can influence another's life in ways you do not realise and that making an effort to really get to know someone else can help them be happier if they are struggling.
However, this is definitely not a book to be given to someone who is suffering from depression. This is not a self-help book. Hannah is in a cycle of self-destruction, a downward spiral she is not able to escape from. She has already made up her mind that she cannot carry on and I am not sure she can be diverted from her course in the end. Mr Porter tries to help her talk, but unintentionally confirms the decision she has already made. I have not suffered from depression myself, but am very aware of what this can lead to and I can see that the book could be read in a way which could offer suicide as an option to someone who is in a dark place.
If you are worried about whether to recommend this book, or allow a young person to read this, my advice would be that this is not a story for younger children - this is a dark and sometimes sexual story and does have a rape in it. I would not recommend this book for anyone under the age of 15/16, because of this.
In addition, be aware that this is not a story for someone who suffers from depression as it can be read in a way which seems to offer suicide as an acceptable option if you can see youself in the same place as Hannah finds herself, although this is not its intention. Be aware of who is reading this book. It is, however an interesting read and does open the discussion about suicide, just be careful about who you recommend this to and do talk about it with them both before and afterwards.
Having said all this, I did enjoy reading the book and don't believe that the author intends anything dark by it or suggests intentionally that suicide is a way to get revenge on others.
The Netflix series worries me far more than the book itself. This strings out the story in a way which seems to glamorise Hannah's tapes and the idea of revenge on those that caused her suffering to make it into a "teen drama full of angst". I would be very worried about letting youngsters watch this series.
The Netflix series is horrific. This oringinally had a certificate of 15, but this was been amended to 18. The tv show definitely does not leave you with the same feelings as the book and most certainly is not for children. The final episode even shows Hannah sitting in a bath and cutting into her veins with a razor blade. Please do not watch this if you liked the book. Jay Asher, you should be ashamed that you had anything to do with this!
Firstly, I don't think this book actively promotes suicide. I actually think it is the intention of the author to make us think about how our actions affect other people's lives. It is not about revenge. It is about changing your actions...making time to talk to that person you think may need someone to talk to....being kinder. Listening to the tapes makes Clay appreciate that a person's actions can influence another's life in ways you do not realise and that making an effort to really get to know someone else can help them be happier if they are struggling.
However, this is definitely not a book to be given to someone who is suffering from depression. This is not a self-help book. Hannah is in a cycle of self-destruction, a downward spiral she is not able to escape from. She has already made up her mind that she cannot carry on and I am not sure she can be diverted from her course in the end. Mr Porter tries to help her talk, but unintentionally confirms the decision she has already made. I have not suffered from depression myself, but am very aware of what this can lead to and I can see that the book could be read in a way which could offer suicide as an option to someone who is in a dark place.
If you are worried about whether to recommend this book, or allow a young person to read this, my advice would be that this is not a story for younger children - this is a dark and sometimes sexual story and does have a rape in it. I would not recommend this book for anyone under the age of 15/16, because of this.
In addition, be aware that this is not a story for someone who suffers from depression as it can be read in a way which seems to offer suicide as an acceptable option if you can see youself in the same place as Hannah finds herself, although this is not its intention. Be aware of who is reading this book. It is, however an interesting read and does open the discussion about suicide, just be careful about who you recommend this to and do talk about it with them both before and afterwards.
Having said all this, I did enjoy reading the book and don't believe that the author intends anything dark by it or suggests intentionally that suicide is a way to get revenge on others.
The Netflix series worries me far more than the book itself. This strings out the story in a way which seems to glamorise Hannah's tapes and the idea of revenge on those that caused her suffering to make it into a "teen drama full of angst". I would be very worried about letting youngsters watch this series.
The Netflix series is horrific. This oringinally had a certificate of 15, but this was been amended to 18. The tv show definitely does not leave you with the same feelings as the book and most certainly is not for children. The final episode even shows Hannah sitting in a bath and cutting into her veins with a razor blade. Please do not watch this if you liked the book. Jay Asher, you should be ashamed that you had anything to do with this!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild (2022) in Movies
Jan 30, 2022
The mimicking raptor (1 more)
The, "power of our spleens," line of dialogue.
Horrendously ugly animation. (2 more)
A terribly boring screenplay.
Humor that is so painfully unfunny.
The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild is the first Disney produced film of the franchise and the first Ice Age film to go directly to streaming. None of the original cast members return other than Simon Pegg as Buck Wild. Scrat is nowhere to be found and the animation is a noticeable downgrade. This project began with the intention of being a new Ice Age TV series, but was then repurposed into an 81-minute feature-length film.
Crash and Eddie (now voiced by Vincent Tong and Aaron Harris) have gotten the itch to branch out on their own. Being a part of the herd with Manny, Diego, Sid, and Ellie has finally reached a boiling point. After ruining a summer getaway with an ice-alanche, Manny encourages Crash and Eddie to go off on their own adventure. He never thought the death portraying duo would take his words to heart.
The possums venture back deep below the ice and back to The Lost World where they are reunited with Buck Wild (Pegg). However, their reunion is bittersweet as a big-headed and big-brained Protoceratops named Orson (Utkarsh Ambudkar, Free Guy) has just returned from exile where he intends to use his raptor henchmen to rule over every living mammal.
This new Ice Age film is animated by Canadian animation company Bardel Entertainment. Other CGI related works Bardel has had a hand in producing include Angry Birds Blues, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012), All Hail King Julien, The Adventures of Puss in Boots, and the Monsters vs. Aliens TV series. The animation in Adventures of Buck Wild is incredibly ugly. Scenery and background characters are minimally detailed and look like poorly colored blobs with a limited color palette.
The film has a very direct-to-video ambiance to it. It’s kind of like watching Reboot or Beast Wars: Transformers today, but what those series lack in animation they make up for with exceptional writing. The Adventures of Buck Wild mostly feels like Disney’s quick attempt at a cash grab after dissolving Blue Sky Studios in 2021. The animation is a bit better when it comes to close-ups of characters as strands of hair have more detail. It still doesn’t help the horrendous character design. Orson is basically the dinosaur version of Yosemite Sam while his raptors look like Wheelie from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
Directed by John C. Donkin (producer of the first three Ice Age films, Rio and Rio 2, and Robots) and written by Ray DeLaurentis (Fairly Oddparents), Jim Hecht (Ice Age: The Meltdown), and William Schifrin (Quest for Camelot), Adventures of Buck Wild has stale writing that has a few noteworthy moments. Most of the attempts at humor are met with eyerolling, severe facepalms, or shaking your head with disgust. The raptor that copies everything Orson does may be the best comedic relief the films has and the, “Power of spleens,” bit is easily the best line of dialogue.
Buck Wild is a seriously bizarre character though. He formed his own team and inadvertently destroyed it since he last met Crash and Eddie. Being alone has obviously taken its toll on him. He now talks to his left hand in a silly voice and has a pumpkin daughter that is babysat by a cucumber. Zee, a former team member and ex-best friend of Buck, is a zorilla/striped polecat. She looks like a raccoon, but is super agile and can spray like a skunk. Her and Buck are incredibly similar other than the fact that Buck likes to rush into battle without any sort of preparation whereas Zee likes to train and plan before facing an enemy.
It would have been so incredibly satisfying if Disney had debuted an Ice Age film with solid animation, laugh out loud humor, a well-written story, and likeable or even downright despicable characters. Having those elements would have at least given fans of the franchise thus far that Disney had a vision of where to take Ice Age in the foreseeable future. Instead we get this lackluster dud of a film that is boring to look at and is mostly massively unfunny while making most of the characters – old and new – forgettable. When Zee first meets Crash and Eddie, Buck says something along the lines of, “What they lack in courage they make up for with bumbling ineptitude.” That is all The Adventures of Buck Wild is; an unnecessary animated excursion into bumbling ineptitude.
Crash and Eddie (now voiced by Vincent Tong and Aaron Harris) have gotten the itch to branch out on their own. Being a part of the herd with Manny, Diego, Sid, and Ellie has finally reached a boiling point. After ruining a summer getaway with an ice-alanche, Manny encourages Crash and Eddie to go off on their own adventure. He never thought the death portraying duo would take his words to heart.
The possums venture back deep below the ice and back to The Lost World where they are reunited with Buck Wild (Pegg). However, their reunion is bittersweet as a big-headed and big-brained Protoceratops named Orson (Utkarsh Ambudkar, Free Guy) has just returned from exile where he intends to use his raptor henchmen to rule over every living mammal.
This new Ice Age film is animated by Canadian animation company Bardel Entertainment. Other CGI related works Bardel has had a hand in producing include Angry Birds Blues, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012), All Hail King Julien, The Adventures of Puss in Boots, and the Monsters vs. Aliens TV series. The animation in Adventures of Buck Wild is incredibly ugly. Scenery and background characters are minimally detailed and look like poorly colored blobs with a limited color palette.
The film has a very direct-to-video ambiance to it. It’s kind of like watching Reboot or Beast Wars: Transformers today, but what those series lack in animation they make up for with exceptional writing. The Adventures of Buck Wild mostly feels like Disney’s quick attempt at a cash grab after dissolving Blue Sky Studios in 2021. The animation is a bit better when it comes to close-ups of characters as strands of hair have more detail. It still doesn’t help the horrendous character design. Orson is basically the dinosaur version of Yosemite Sam while his raptors look like Wheelie from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
Directed by John C. Donkin (producer of the first three Ice Age films, Rio and Rio 2, and Robots) and written by Ray DeLaurentis (Fairly Oddparents), Jim Hecht (Ice Age: The Meltdown), and William Schifrin (Quest for Camelot), Adventures of Buck Wild has stale writing that has a few noteworthy moments. Most of the attempts at humor are met with eyerolling, severe facepalms, or shaking your head with disgust. The raptor that copies everything Orson does may be the best comedic relief the films has and the, “Power of spleens,” bit is easily the best line of dialogue.
Buck Wild is a seriously bizarre character though. He formed his own team and inadvertently destroyed it since he last met Crash and Eddie. Being alone has obviously taken its toll on him. He now talks to his left hand in a silly voice and has a pumpkin daughter that is babysat by a cucumber. Zee, a former team member and ex-best friend of Buck, is a zorilla/striped polecat. She looks like a raccoon, but is super agile and can spray like a skunk. Her and Buck are incredibly similar other than the fact that Buck likes to rush into battle without any sort of preparation whereas Zee likes to train and plan before facing an enemy.
It would have been so incredibly satisfying if Disney had debuted an Ice Age film with solid animation, laugh out loud humor, a well-written story, and likeable or even downright despicable characters. Having those elements would have at least given fans of the franchise thus far that Disney had a vision of where to take Ice Age in the foreseeable future. Instead we get this lackluster dud of a film that is boring to look at and is mostly massively unfunny while making most of the characters – old and new – forgettable. When Zee first meets Crash and Eddie, Buck says something along the lines of, “What they lack in courage they make up for with bumbling ineptitude.” That is all The Adventures of Buck Wild is; an unnecessary animated excursion into bumbling ineptitude.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Reminiscence (2021) in Movies
Aug 24, 2021
Needed a better Director - like one of the Nolan boys
Christopher Nolan is one of the greatest Directors of our time usually making films that have an attribute of time in them. His brother, Jonathan Nolan, has had a hand in most of his brother’s terrific works as well as the creative force behind such “trippy” TV series as PERSON OF INTEREST and the recent revival of WESTWORLD. In both of these TV Series, Jonathan Nolan was assisted by his wife, Lisa Joy.
Lisa Joy has written and directed her own “trippy, play with time” film, REMINISCENCE that has quite a few of the hallmarks of a Christopher (or Jonathan) Nolan film - but it also has one very unsettling aspect to it - it plays like a twice over copy of something else.
REMINISCENCE is a classic neo-noir with our hero being smitten by the femme fatale which draws him into her world, where murder, criminal activities and low-lifes run rampant all with a downbeat tone.
This sounds like a terrific premise for a Christopher Nolan film, unfortunately, in the hands of Lisa Joy, it is like watching a local community theater production of a Broadway musical.
The first 1/3 of this film is one long, laborious setup for the tragedy that will unfold and it is told at an uninteresting snail’s pace. Reminiscence picks up a bit in the middle with a pretty good action scene - and plot twist - before squandering this momentum with mediocrity at the end.
Joy’s script - which was on Hollywood’s infamous “blacklist’ of scripts for many, many years (a list of screenplays that are generally praised, but for some reason or another have not been produced), is at the core of the problem. The dialogue is not very interesting and dripping with heavy film noire clichés. She does not follow the Hollywood doctrine of “show, don’t tell”. She TELLS the audience much, much more than is needed and never really gives the audience any credit for figuring things out for themselves.
For example, there is a “dirty cop” that is central to the plot (there always is in this type of film). So, how do the other characters in the film address him? “You’re the dirty cop…”
I’d laugh if I wasn’t so bored.
What DOES work in this film is the acting of Hugh Jackman (as our hero), Rebecca Ferguson (as the femme fatale) and - especially - Thandie Newton as the “Gal Friday” of Jackman’s. Someone needs to give this talented actress a true showcase of her talents.
Someone also needs to give good ol’ Cliff Curtis a vehicle for his talents - he is one of the most misused good performers in Hollywood and he is misused in this film as well.
And…don’t get me started on the special effects. If you are going to make a trippy, sci-fi, futuristic neo-noire thriller, you probably shouldn’t cut the corner on the special effects, but this film does that, amazingly.
But…with a good Director at the helm there is enough “good enough” here (especially in the acting) that you should be able to pull something decent out of it.
But…Joy is making her theatrical film directing debut - exactly the type of director that this film does not need. What this film needed wasn’t a rookie director like Joy, it needed a Nolan - either Jonathan or (preferably) Christopher to make this work. But, one will have to be contented with a copy of a copy.
And that’s just not good enough.
Letter Grade: C+ (the performances of the leads almost salvage things.
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lisa Joy has written and directed her own “trippy, play with time” film, REMINISCENCE that has quite a few of the hallmarks of a Christopher (or Jonathan) Nolan film - but it also has one very unsettling aspect to it - it plays like a twice over copy of something else.
REMINISCENCE is a classic neo-noir with our hero being smitten by the femme fatale which draws him into her world, where murder, criminal activities and low-lifes run rampant all with a downbeat tone.
This sounds like a terrific premise for a Christopher Nolan film, unfortunately, in the hands of Lisa Joy, it is like watching a local community theater production of a Broadway musical.
The first 1/3 of this film is one long, laborious setup for the tragedy that will unfold and it is told at an uninteresting snail’s pace. Reminiscence picks up a bit in the middle with a pretty good action scene - and plot twist - before squandering this momentum with mediocrity at the end.
Joy’s script - which was on Hollywood’s infamous “blacklist’ of scripts for many, many years (a list of screenplays that are generally praised, but for some reason or another have not been produced), is at the core of the problem. The dialogue is not very interesting and dripping with heavy film noire clichés. She does not follow the Hollywood doctrine of “show, don’t tell”. She TELLS the audience much, much more than is needed and never really gives the audience any credit for figuring things out for themselves.
For example, there is a “dirty cop” that is central to the plot (there always is in this type of film). So, how do the other characters in the film address him? “You’re the dirty cop…”
I’d laugh if I wasn’t so bored.
What DOES work in this film is the acting of Hugh Jackman (as our hero), Rebecca Ferguson (as the femme fatale) and - especially - Thandie Newton as the “Gal Friday” of Jackman’s. Someone needs to give this talented actress a true showcase of her talents.
Someone also needs to give good ol’ Cliff Curtis a vehicle for his talents - he is one of the most misused good performers in Hollywood and he is misused in this film as well.
And…don’t get me started on the special effects. If you are going to make a trippy, sci-fi, futuristic neo-noire thriller, you probably shouldn’t cut the corner on the special effects, but this film does that, amazingly.
But…with a good Director at the helm there is enough “good enough” here (especially in the acting) that you should be able to pull something decent out of it.
But…Joy is making her theatrical film directing debut - exactly the type of director that this film does not need. What this film needed wasn’t a rookie director like Joy, it needed a Nolan - either Jonathan or (preferably) Christopher to make this work. But, one will have to be contented with a copy of a copy.
And that’s just not good enough.
Letter Grade: C+ (the performances of the leads almost salvage things.
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Goodbye Normal Jean
It would be easy to write off X-Men: Dark Phoenix as a complete and utter disaster. With the departure of Bryan Singer (again) from the franchise, first-time director Simon Kinberg taking his place and rumours of costly reshoots pushing the budget north of $200million, things weren’t looking good for this adaptation of the popular Marvel comic.
Let’s not forget that the last time Fox tried to adapt this storyline we ended up with 2006’s The Last Stand, and the less said about that the better. Looking back over the last 20 years, the X-Men’s film franchise history has been chequered to say the least.
Nevertheless, this particular timeline that started with Matthew Vaughn’s adequate First Class, followed up by the excellent Days of Future Past and the flabby Apocalypse ends with Dark Phoenix. But is it worthy of your consideration?
This is the story of one of the X-Men’s most beloved characters, Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), as she evolves into the iconic Phoenix. During a rescue mission in space, Jean is hit by a cosmic force that transforms her into one of the most powerful mutants of all. Wrestling with this increasingly unstable power as well as her own personal demons, Jean spirals out of control, tearing the X-Men family apart and threatening to destroy the very fabric of our planet.
First things first – this is not a bad film. Yes, you heard me right. Leagues above Apocalypse and much better than The Last Stand, Dark Phoenix is a film that has been let down by catastrophically poor marketing. It’s not perfect, as we’ll discover in this review, but it tries a different approach, and for that it should be applauded.
For this reviewer, the modern day cast of characters has always been a weak spot for the series and that doesn’t really change in Dark Phoenix. James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier, especially since packing on the muscle for this Glass, but he performs much better here than he did in its predecessor. His transition into egotistical maniac, obsessed by the celebrity status the X-Men have acquired at the outset of the film is an intriguing diversion from where he was at the end of Apocalypse.
The younger cast are more likeable. Kodi Smitt-McPhee’s portrayal of Nightcrawler is fabulous and he gets more to do this time around. Tye Sheridan is great as young Cyclops and Evan Peters’ Quicksilver remains a highlight, though it’s unfortunate he’s cast aside relatively quickly – for fans of his set pieces from the previous two films, you’ll be disappointed here. Michael Fassbender and Nicholas Hoult bring their a-games, but they even seem a little bored by what’s going on. “You’re always sorry, Charles. And there’s always a speech. But nobody cares anymore!” bites Michael Fassbender at one point in the film – perhaps he’s onto something?
The first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past
Of the female cast, Sophie Turner does her best with the material she’s given, and her Jean Grey is full of anger, angst and melancholy. The script struggles to provide her with any other emotion, but she’s a pleasing protagonist for the most part. Unfortunately, Jennifer Lawrence completely phones in her performance as Mystique and Jessica Chastain’s horrifically underwritten villain wastes a fabulous actor in a thankless role – much like Oscar Issac in Apocalypse.
With reports of heavy reshoots, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the film would end up a royal mess. Thankfully, the first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past. Focusing on character development rather than all-out action, it’s a pleasing change and one which is more than welcome. Unfortunately, as time ticks away, the film loses all semblance of sanity and becomes muddled as it steamrolls towards an underwhelming climax.
And despite the reported budget of $200million, some of the shot choices and outfits feel cheap. It’s clear director Simon Kinberg is a fan of the series, but the X-Men costumes are bland, ill-fitting and a world away from what we’ve seen before. Closer to the comics they may be, but that’s not always a good thing. Elsewhere, the film feels cut-rate, almost TV-movie like and that’s a real shame because the special effects are top-notch. Mercifully, Hans Zimmer’s score is wonderful. The soaring orchestral soundtrack works brilliantly with the film – it’s probably the best music in the series to date.
Overall, X-Men: Dark Phoenix has been a victim of poor marketing with trailers that spoilt perhaps the most pivotal moment of the film (which we won’t spoil here). Nevertheless, the first hour is great and the special effects provide the film with some thrilling set pieces. It’s a shame then that the film offers up nothing new to the table despite some committed performances – this Phoenix just doesn’t quite rise to the occasion.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/06/07/x-men-dark-phoenix-review-goodbye-normal-jean/
Let’s not forget that the last time Fox tried to adapt this storyline we ended up with 2006’s The Last Stand, and the less said about that the better. Looking back over the last 20 years, the X-Men’s film franchise history has been chequered to say the least.
Nevertheless, this particular timeline that started with Matthew Vaughn’s adequate First Class, followed up by the excellent Days of Future Past and the flabby Apocalypse ends with Dark Phoenix. But is it worthy of your consideration?
This is the story of one of the X-Men’s most beloved characters, Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), as she evolves into the iconic Phoenix. During a rescue mission in space, Jean is hit by a cosmic force that transforms her into one of the most powerful mutants of all. Wrestling with this increasingly unstable power as well as her own personal demons, Jean spirals out of control, tearing the X-Men family apart and threatening to destroy the very fabric of our planet.
First things first – this is not a bad film. Yes, you heard me right. Leagues above Apocalypse and much better than The Last Stand, Dark Phoenix is a film that has been let down by catastrophically poor marketing. It’s not perfect, as we’ll discover in this review, but it tries a different approach, and for that it should be applauded.
For this reviewer, the modern day cast of characters has always been a weak spot for the series and that doesn’t really change in Dark Phoenix. James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier, especially since packing on the muscle for this Glass, but he performs much better here than he did in its predecessor. His transition into egotistical maniac, obsessed by the celebrity status the X-Men have acquired at the outset of the film is an intriguing diversion from where he was at the end of Apocalypse.
The younger cast are more likeable. Kodi Smitt-McPhee’s portrayal of Nightcrawler is fabulous and he gets more to do this time around. Tye Sheridan is great as young Cyclops and Evan Peters’ Quicksilver remains a highlight, though it’s unfortunate he’s cast aside relatively quickly – for fans of his set pieces from the previous two films, you’ll be disappointed here. Michael Fassbender and Nicholas Hoult bring their a-games, but they even seem a little bored by what’s going on. “You’re always sorry, Charles. And there’s always a speech. But nobody cares anymore!” bites Michael Fassbender at one point in the film – perhaps he’s onto something?
The first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past
Of the female cast, Sophie Turner does her best with the material she’s given, and her Jean Grey is full of anger, angst and melancholy. The script struggles to provide her with any other emotion, but she’s a pleasing protagonist for the most part. Unfortunately, Jennifer Lawrence completely phones in her performance as Mystique and Jessica Chastain’s horrifically underwritten villain wastes a fabulous actor in a thankless role – much like Oscar Issac in Apocalypse.
With reports of heavy reshoots, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the film would end up a royal mess. Thankfully, the first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past. Focusing on character development rather than all-out action, it’s a pleasing change and one which is more than welcome. Unfortunately, as time ticks away, the film loses all semblance of sanity and becomes muddled as it steamrolls towards an underwhelming climax.
And despite the reported budget of $200million, some of the shot choices and outfits feel cheap. It’s clear director Simon Kinberg is a fan of the series, but the X-Men costumes are bland, ill-fitting and a world away from what we’ve seen before. Closer to the comics they may be, but that’s not always a good thing. Elsewhere, the film feels cut-rate, almost TV-movie like and that’s a real shame because the special effects are top-notch. Mercifully, Hans Zimmer’s score is wonderful. The soaring orchestral soundtrack works brilliantly with the film – it’s probably the best music in the series to date.
Overall, X-Men: Dark Phoenix has been a victim of poor marketing with trailers that spoilt perhaps the most pivotal moment of the film (which we won’t spoil here). Nevertheless, the first hour is great and the special effects provide the film with some thrilling set pieces. It’s a shame then that the film offers up nothing new to the table despite some committed performances – this Phoenix just doesn’t quite rise to the occasion.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/06/07/x-men-dark-phoenix-review-goodbye-normal-jean/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Jem and the Holograms (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Being a teenager is a confusing time, we want to be accepted, popular, and, at times, invisible. In a world where you feel overlooked and ignored, it is gratifying to have a voice, an identity, some special aspect that is going to make you stand out and be accepted. Jem and the Holograms attempts to make this a theme. Creating your identity and having the ability to shape and form it into a way that it becomes your own shield against the ills of the world. It is a very promising concept and idea when attempting to update the series for today’s audience. Unfortunately there isn’t much substance to the film. The substance that is apparent is quite shallow and undeveloped.
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/