Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Diana hits rock bottom… as does the script.
Discordant strings sound as the royal party arrives at Sandringham for Christmas. “Is she here yet” intones the Queen. “No ma’am” her major domo replies. “Then she’s late”. Cut to a soulful choral version of “Perfect Day” as Diana Princess of Wales (née Spencer) arrives via a dramatic aerial shot. Hugs go to her sons William and Harry before she unhappily stalks through the corridors like a hunted animal.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Perfect Death in Books
Sep 28, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have debated with myself over a rating for this, the third in the "DI Luc Callanach" series of Edinburgh police procedurals. While the overall story is definitely a 4 star, verging on 5, certain aspects of the dialogue in this one were a little jarring at times, and the plot hinged on a couple of very out of character decisions on the part of the murderer.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Widows (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Before I'd even seen anything beyond the plot and a poster I was confused. It really just felt like the poster was designed to catch people. "Look, we've got these big names! Come and watch it!" I know that's what posters are meant to do, but considering the movie is about these women taking up the reins of their dearly departed I'd have had more respect for a poster that focused on them.
Widows has every chance to be great. Based on Lynda La Plante's Widows, with the screenplay written by Gillian Flynn and Steve McQueen, as well as being directed by the latter. Those three names should guarantee a success, and while it seems to be very popular among viewers it has left me some what cold.
The idea is a solid one that you would expect from La Plante's repertoire, and it's worked before. Unfortunately that could not bring it back from the brink for me.
I can't think of another film that has given me such an instant feeling of dislike. The opening scene made me cringe, and having it quickly change pace into a violently loud action scene and back again was jarring to watch.
The first inkling that something is awry comes fairly early on and even without much more you can see where the plot is going. I'm impressed that the trailers managed to stay away from anything obvious.
We have an interesting assortment of baddies and there are two perfectly contrasting ones in Jamal (Brian Tyree Henry) and Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya) Manning. The former is charismatic and subtly scary, whereas the latter has no likable qualities (apart from a clear love of reading) and is extremely vicious. The other difference is that Jamal in enjoyable to watch and Jatemme isn't. Usually even the most loathed of villains is good to watch on screen, not in this case. Jamal comes out on top in the villain stakes even with the dog incident.
Normally I wouldn't think much beyond what you're presented with in each scene of the movie, but I quickly found myself wondering about a lot of things. Linda's interaction with Delia's husband was strange and one of many things that felt unnecessary. And while I'll happily believe that women could successfully execute a heist, I'm not really sure I can believe that THESE women could do it, I don't care how well documented his notebook was.
Something that seems to a popular device in this is "the flashback". At the beginning it lays up the backstory of the two crews quickly and gives you a good sense of the people, even though I feel the way it was executed on screen wasn't so hot. When the film starts to round up and these scenes give you the missing story at just the right point. The one's I didn't like were between Veronica and Harry. Not all of them were flashbacks, some were Veronica dealing with Harry's death. They seemed more on the dramatic side and didn't feel in-keeping with the rest of the film. (I will say that this film is listed on IMDb as "crime, drama, romance"... Romance seems like a bit of a stretch, and crime and drama as two separate things are very different to a "crime drama". I'll admit that it's a very slight difference, but I think it's still there.)
I'm not sure how the characters worked in the book, but I would assume that some liberties had to be taken to change the setting, and obviously when you're turning a book into a film then you're going to have to tie up some loopholes with jiggery-pokery. What was left were some characters with potential that never seemed to be filled and others that were so throwaway I had already forgotten about them when I read through the cast list after I'd seen it.
What you should do
I'd wait until this one is streaming. It doesn't require a big screen and I always think films like this are better if you can talk to the screen while you're watching them. "Why are you doing that?!" "Yeah, let's see how far that gets you!" and the like. It's got enough reasonable moments to watch it at least once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Obviously the giant piles of money are always appealing, but I'm very tempted to go for Linda's store. I'd love to work all day in a shop selling fantastical dresses and tiaras watching people's faces light up when they found the right one. It's like the Disney Princess dream come to life!
Widows has every chance to be great. Based on Lynda La Plante's Widows, with the screenplay written by Gillian Flynn and Steve McQueen, as well as being directed by the latter. Those three names should guarantee a success, and while it seems to be very popular among viewers it has left me some what cold.
The idea is a solid one that you would expect from La Plante's repertoire, and it's worked before. Unfortunately that could not bring it back from the brink for me.
I can't think of another film that has given me such an instant feeling of dislike. The opening scene made me cringe, and having it quickly change pace into a violently loud action scene and back again was jarring to watch.
The first inkling that something is awry comes fairly early on and even without much more you can see where the plot is going. I'm impressed that the trailers managed to stay away from anything obvious.
We have an interesting assortment of baddies and there are two perfectly contrasting ones in Jamal (Brian Tyree Henry) and Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya) Manning. The former is charismatic and subtly scary, whereas the latter has no likable qualities (apart from a clear love of reading) and is extremely vicious. The other difference is that Jamal in enjoyable to watch and Jatemme isn't. Usually even the most loathed of villains is good to watch on screen, not in this case. Jamal comes out on top in the villain stakes even with the dog incident.
Normally I wouldn't think much beyond what you're presented with in each scene of the movie, but I quickly found myself wondering about a lot of things. Linda's interaction with Delia's husband was strange and one of many things that felt unnecessary. And while I'll happily believe that women could successfully execute a heist, I'm not really sure I can believe that THESE women could do it, I don't care how well documented his notebook was.
Something that seems to a popular device in this is "the flashback". At the beginning it lays up the backstory of the two crews quickly and gives you a good sense of the people, even though I feel the way it was executed on screen wasn't so hot. When the film starts to round up and these scenes give you the missing story at just the right point. The one's I didn't like were between Veronica and Harry. Not all of them were flashbacks, some were Veronica dealing with Harry's death. They seemed more on the dramatic side and didn't feel in-keeping with the rest of the film. (I will say that this film is listed on IMDb as "crime, drama, romance"... Romance seems like a bit of a stretch, and crime and drama as two separate things are very different to a "crime drama". I'll admit that it's a very slight difference, but I think it's still there.)
I'm not sure how the characters worked in the book, but I would assume that some liberties had to be taken to change the setting, and obviously when you're turning a book into a film then you're going to have to tie up some loopholes with jiggery-pokery. What was left were some characters with potential that never seemed to be filled and others that were so throwaway I had already forgotten about them when I read through the cast list after I'd seen it.
What you should do
I'd wait until this one is streaming. It doesn't require a big screen and I always think films like this are better if you can talk to the screen while you're watching them. "Why are you doing that?!" "Yeah, let's see how far that gets you!" and the like. It's got enough reasonable moments to watch it at least once.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Obviously the giant piles of money are always appealing, but I'm very tempted to go for Linda's store. I'd love to work all day in a shop selling fantastical dresses and tiaras watching people's faces light up when they found the right one. It's like the Disney Princess dream come to life!
vouchercloud: vouchers offers
Lifestyle and Shopping
7.4
Rate It
App
Get the best savings and offers for your favourite restaurants, high-street stores, supermarkets and...
BeatBurn Treadmill Trainer - Walking, Running, and Jogging Workouts
Health & Fitness and Sports
App
BeatBurn uses lolo's exclusive BEAT-SYNC technology, changing the beat of your music to perfectly...
Darren (1599 KP) rated Redwood (2017) in Movies
Dec 1, 2019
Verdict: Vampire 101
Story: Redwood starts as a couple Josh (Beckingham) and Beth (Nardone) head away for a hiking trip to get back to nature before Josh start his treatment for leukaemia, the pair meet ranger Steve (Khan) who warns them to stay on the path and the two set off on their adventure.
The couple see a chance at a shortcut up the mountain, which sees them go off the trail where they run into bloodthirsty vampires forcing them to battle to survive.
Thoughts on Redwood
Characters – Josh is a workaholic that has just discovered he has leukaemia, which sees him want to do more open to nature, which sees this hiking trip come about, he is dealing with everything well believing everything is under control and he suggests the shortcut off the trail. Beth is the supportive girlfriend that is getting scared about what is happening to Josh, wanting to get the most out of their time in case the treatment doesn’t work. Vincent and Steve are both rangers that are met on the way up the mountain, both have the same warning about staying on the trail.
Performances – Mike Beckingham and Tatjana Nardone both are solid enough through the film, we get the ideas of how their relationship is facing a new problem, with how they are both trying to stay strong. Anybody we meet is simply a cameo like performance.
Story – The story here follows a couple that head off on a hiking trip on a mountain range only to head off the trail and find themselves facing off against vampires. This is a typical type of story which follows a couple making the mistake of going of the trail, there really isn’t much more to the story, we do have the relationship strain between a couple when one could become terminally ill. Once we get to the vampire side of the story, we just don’t get very much going on because by the time we get to the vampire side of the story, it is just running without doing much. We don’t get much out of this story by the end.
Horror – The horror in the film does feel weak because we have a couple of moments which is mostly just running, with the emotional drama seeming to take centre stage.
Settings – The film is set in a mountain range which shows us just how far the couple have gone to get back to nature, it could have mystery about it.
Special Effects – The effects are simple when it comes to the vampire creations, we don’t need too many effects either.
Scene of the Movie – Getting to the top.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too much talking.
Final Thoughts – This is a poor vampire movie that tries to do something bigger, but ends up dragging along way too long.
Overall: Forgettable Vampire Movie.
Story: Redwood starts as a couple Josh (Beckingham) and Beth (Nardone) head away for a hiking trip to get back to nature before Josh start his treatment for leukaemia, the pair meet ranger Steve (Khan) who warns them to stay on the path and the two set off on their adventure.
The couple see a chance at a shortcut up the mountain, which sees them go off the trail where they run into bloodthirsty vampires forcing them to battle to survive.
Thoughts on Redwood
Characters – Josh is a workaholic that has just discovered he has leukaemia, which sees him want to do more open to nature, which sees this hiking trip come about, he is dealing with everything well believing everything is under control and he suggests the shortcut off the trail. Beth is the supportive girlfriend that is getting scared about what is happening to Josh, wanting to get the most out of their time in case the treatment doesn’t work. Vincent and Steve are both rangers that are met on the way up the mountain, both have the same warning about staying on the trail.
Performances – Mike Beckingham and Tatjana Nardone both are solid enough through the film, we get the ideas of how their relationship is facing a new problem, with how they are both trying to stay strong. Anybody we meet is simply a cameo like performance.
Story – The story here follows a couple that head off on a hiking trip on a mountain range only to head off the trail and find themselves facing off against vampires. This is a typical type of story which follows a couple making the mistake of going of the trail, there really isn’t much more to the story, we do have the relationship strain between a couple when one could become terminally ill. Once we get to the vampire side of the story, we just don’t get very much going on because by the time we get to the vampire side of the story, it is just running without doing much. We don’t get much out of this story by the end.
Horror – The horror in the film does feel weak because we have a couple of moments which is mostly just running, with the emotional drama seeming to take centre stage.
Settings – The film is set in a mountain range which shows us just how far the couple have gone to get back to nature, it could have mystery about it.
Special Effects – The effects are simple when it comes to the vampire creations, we don’t need too many effects either.
Scene of the Movie – Getting to the top.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too much talking.
Final Thoughts – This is a poor vampire movie that tries to do something bigger, but ends up dragging along way too long.
Overall: Forgettable Vampire Movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Gravel in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
Last year at the start of PAX West; Genevieve, Joseph, and myself were invited to get a look at the pending racing game GRAVEL in a private meeting at a suite near the convention. What made this even more exciting was that the meeting took place a day before the convention opened so since we were in the area to run errands and pick up our press passes; this was a very appealing way to see a game and get the jump on our convention coverage.
I do want to say at the start that I am horrible at driving games. My preferred method of braking often is using the wall, other cars, and obstacles to redirect my vehicle or slow down, but it does not stop my appreciation for them.
GRAVEL is a very fast paced and enjoyable game that mixes online and offline racing and allows players to use and customize trucks and cars as they race on tracks and outdoor courses. Everything from the Pacific to Alaska and Africa come into play and there are even some amazingly difficult night races where you have to make your way with only your headlights to keep you on the ever changing off-road course.
I had hoped for a few more locales, but there are variations on each locale and you can expect more maps and possibly modes will come down the road.
The graphics are fantastic and playing the game on a PS4 Pro with a 4K television brought the visuals of the game into amazing focus as it was easy to become immersed in the game from the very start.
The menus do take a bit of getting used to as it was at times unclear what form of racing I was about to embark on but I was up to speed in no time.
Matchmaking was fairly easy but it did seem to match me with drivers of a far superior ability time and again which makes it hard to see anything other than a last place finish should I make one mistake on the course.
While the game may not have the depth of other racing games, I found it to be instantly engaging and very fun which is saying quite a bit considering I usually do not play many racing games. Joseph is a fan of racing games and he was able to successfully complete many of the races in our PAX West meeting with no issues and often in the top position.
In the end GRAVEL is a fun entry for those looking to dip their toes into some off road racing or for diehards, but some hardcore racers may want more depth and variety.
http://sknr.net/2018/03/10/gravel/
I do want to say at the start that I am horrible at driving games. My preferred method of braking often is using the wall, other cars, and obstacles to redirect my vehicle or slow down, but it does not stop my appreciation for them.
GRAVEL is a very fast paced and enjoyable game that mixes online and offline racing and allows players to use and customize trucks and cars as they race on tracks and outdoor courses. Everything from the Pacific to Alaska and Africa come into play and there are even some amazingly difficult night races where you have to make your way with only your headlights to keep you on the ever changing off-road course.
I had hoped for a few more locales, but there are variations on each locale and you can expect more maps and possibly modes will come down the road.
The graphics are fantastic and playing the game on a PS4 Pro with a 4K television brought the visuals of the game into amazing focus as it was easy to become immersed in the game from the very start.
The menus do take a bit of getting used to as it was at times unclear what form of racing I was about to embark on but I was up to speed in no time.
Matchmaking was fairly easy but it did seem to match me with drivers of a far superior ability time and again which makes it hard to see anything other than a last place finish should I make one mistake on the course.
While the game may not have the depth of other racing games, I found it to be instantly engaging and very fun which is saying quite a bit considering I usually do not play many racing games. Joseph is a fan of racing games and he was able to successfully complete many of the races in our PAX West meeting with no issues and often in the top position.
In the end GRAVEL is a fun entry for those looking to dip their toes into some off road racing or for diehards, but some hardcore racers may want more depth and variety.
http://sknr.net/2018/03/10/gravel/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Larry Crowne (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
“Larry Crowne” is a movie (in the works since 2006) that stars Tom Hanks in the lead as Larry Crown and Julia Roberts as Mercedes Tainot, a disenchanted community college speech professor.
“Larry Crowne” tells the tale of a Navy veteran and recent divorce’ whom, after many years of tirelessly and loyally working at the same big-box store, is fired on the spot supposedly because of the fact that he does not have a college degree. Coincidentally at the same time the bank demands the money from the mortgage taken out on his home. With no options and on the advice of his next door neighbor Lamar (who tries to sell him a “free” college degree for 20 cents at his garage sale) Larry decides to enroll in community college From there the movie follows Larry as falls in love with his speech professor Dr. Mercedes Tainot (who is still married to some Internet businessman obsessed with large breasted women) while at the same time, being befriended by a “gang” of motor-scooter/vespa enthusiasts.
Now ….. normally I’m not the one to go see the stereotypical “feel good movie” of the season. Plus, I’m honestly not that big a fan of Julia Roberts. But come on ….. Personally, I cannot ever recall Tom Hanks in a bad movie and I have to admit it Julia Roberts had me laughing the minute she started talking. After the first 15 minutes of the movie, you have a pretty good idea of the general direction the movie will go in and how it will end. However, this is one of those movies where it’s more entertaining to see how the whole movie plays out despite that fact. The ensemble cast that Tom Hanks put together does an excellent job of keeping you on your seat laughing (including a hilarious performance by the great George Takei as a militant economics professor who is trying to pimp his new book very two minutes in his class). Plus, the movie does a great job keeping you focused on the story. Especially when the gang of motor-scooter enthusiasts seemingly appear out of nowhere to show him how NOT to dress like a cop and to explain the concept of “Fung Shui”.
The ensemble cast that includes Bryan Cranstson, Pam Grier, Cedric The Entertainer, Rob Riggle, Wilmer Valderama, and George Takei amongst many others supports the lead characters well.
All in all, I’d say this movie deserves 4 out of 5 stars. Not a movie you’d want to take the kids to due some sexual content and alcohol use in the movie. Definitely a great “Date Movie” though. Besides being slow at some points and it’s “predictability” I’d say it’s definitely worth your hard earned money. Go to a matinee showing or get it “on demand”.
“Larry Crowne” tells the tale of a Navy veteran and recent divorce’ whom, after many years of tirelessly and loyally working at the same big-box store, is fired on the spot supposedly because of the fact that he does not have a college degree. Coincidentally at the same time the bank demands the money from the mortgage taken out on his home. With no options and on the advice of his next door neighbor Lamar (who tries to sell him a “free” college degree for 20 cents at his garage sale) Larry decides to enroll in community college From there the movie follows Larry as falls in love with his speech professor Dr. Mercedes Tainot (who is still married to some Internet businessman obsessed with large breasted women) while at the same time, being befriended by a “gang” of motor-scooter/vespa enthusiasts.
Now ….. normally I’m not the one to go see the stereotypical “feel good movie” of the season. Plus, I’m honestly not that big a fan of Julia Roberts. But come on ….. Personally, I cannot ever recall Tom Hanks in a bad movie and I have to admit it Julia Roberts had me laughing the minute she started talking. After the first 15 minutes of the movie, you have a pretty good idea of the general direction the movie will go in and how it will end. However, this is one of those movies where it’s more entertaining to see how the whole movie plays out despite that fact. The ensemble cast that Tom Hanks put together does an excellent job of keeping you on your seat laughing (including a hilarious performance by the great George Takei as a militant economics professor who is trying to pimp his new book very two minutes in his class). Plus, the movie does a great job keeping you focused on the story. Especially when the gang of motor-scooter enthusiasts seemingly appear out of nowhere to show him how NOT to dress like a cop and to explain the concept of “Fung Shui”.
The ensemble cast that includes Bryan Cranstson, Pam Grier, Cedric The Entertainer, Rob Riggle, Wilmer Valderama, and George Takei amongst many others supports the lead characters well.
All in all, I’d say this movie deserves 4 out of 5 stars. Not a movie you’d want to take the kids to due some sexual content and alcohol use in the movie. Definitely a great “Date Movie” though. Besides being slow at some points and it’s “predictability” I’d say it’s definitely worth your hard earned money. Go to a matinee showing or get it “on demand”.
Effective Birth Preparation: Your Practical Guide to a Better Birth
6.0
Rate It
Book
In response to the success of the award winning "Natal Hypnotherapy CDs" and courses, founder Maggie...
Speedometer Speed Box
Navigation, Utilities and Travel
App
“Awesome!!! The best speed app on iphone” 5 Stars by kurtonic Speed Box is a Speedometer and...