Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Mist (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1987, I picked up a copy of the new Stephen King novel, Skeleton Crew, a collection of short stories that were amongst the best short stories the author has ever written. The first story in the collection was a novella entitled The Mist and I was captivated by the engrossing stories, characters, and supernatural situations depicted.
As I moved on to other books and films, I never forgot the impact of the story, and for years wondered why nobody had attempted to bring the story to the screen. A few years later, I heard rumblings of an attempt to make a film version of the story with Michael J. Fox being listed as the intended lead.
While this never came to be, Frank Darabont who masterfully adapted King’s “The Green Mile” and “The Shawshank Redemption”, into solid films, took up the task of writing and directing “The Mist” and has done a solid job of translating the master story for the screen.
The film stars Thomas Jane as David Drayton, a movie poster artist who lives in a quiet Maine town in a nice house overlooking the water with his wife and son Billy (Nathan Gamble). The morning after a freak storm lays waste to the surrounding area, Frank and Billy set out for the store with their estranged neighbor Brent Norton (Andre Braugher).
When they arrive at the store, they find it packed with people who are trying to stock up on supplies following the storm. With the power, phones, and cell service being out, and military forces being deployed all around them, the town is in a state of chaos.
A man marked with blood suddenly emerges from an expanding mist that has formed over the town and claims that something in this mist has taken his friend. This event is punctuated with a warning siren that has started to sound, which leads the people in the store to lock the doors and seek shelter in the store.
Frank attempts to tell the people that there was something scraping against the back loading door, but his concerns are ignored with tragic results. Since this event was witnessed by only a small group of people, the residents trapped in the store quickly give in to their fears and star to accuse Frank of fabricating the situation, and locale crackpot Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden), and blames their situation on Judgment Day and starts to convert people to her radical beliefs.
Things get even worse when creatures from the mist get into the store and attack the people which forces Frank and company to take a risky trip to the neighboring drug store in an attempt to gain much needed medical supplies.
In short order the situation gets even worse as Frank and his supporters are faced to contend not only with the creatures in the mist, but the growing threat from Mrs. Carmody and her fanatics who have adapted a mob mentality towards anyone they think is a non-believer.
What follows is a thrilling series of events that leads to one of the most shocking and memorable finale acts that will stay with you long after the film has ended.
There has been much made of the decision to add a proper ending to the story instead of the nebulous ending in the story where nothing was truly resolved. I think this decision was wise, as being a fan of the story; I was a bit frustrated that there was not final outcome in the story and I was left with more questions than answers when the story ended.
Darabont has crafted a finale that is sure to upset some people and please others, but credit has to be given for crafting an ending that does not take the standard Hollywood outs.
The cast is strong, and the FX and Gore are restrained to the point that they do not overshadow what is essentially a drama about people in an extra-ordinary situation, and what happens when the rules and creature comforts of society collapse.
While the film will not break new ground in the horror genre, it is one of the best adaptation of a King story, and is very entertaining.
As I moved on to other books and films, I never forgot the impact of the story, and for years wondered why nobody had attempted to bring the story to the screen. A few years later, I heard rumblings of an attempt to make a film version of the story with Michael J. Fox being listed as the intended lead.
While this never came to be, Frank Darabont who masterfully adapted King’s “The Green Mile” and “The Shawshank Redemption”, into solid films, took up the task of writing and directing “The Mist” and has done a solid job of translating the master story for the screen.
The film stars Thomas Jane as David Drayton, a movie poster artist who lives in a quiet Maine town in a nice house overlooking the water with his wife and son Billy (Nathan Gamble). The morning after a freak storm lays waste to the surrounding area, Frank and Billy set out for the store with their estranged neighbor Brent Norton (Andre Braugher).
When they arrive at the store, they find it packed with people who are trying to stock up on supplies following the storm. With the power, phones, and cell service being out, and military forces being deployed all around them, the town is in a state of chaos.
A man marked with blood suddenly emerges from an expanding mist that has formed over the town and claims that something in this mist has taken his friend. This event is punctuated with a warning siren that has started to sound, which leads the people in the store to lock the doors and seek shelter in the store.
Frank attempts to tell the people that there was something scraping against the back loading door, but his concerns are ignored with tragic results. Since this event was witnessed by only a small group of people, the residents trapped in the store quickly give in to their fears and star to accuse Frank of fabricating the situation, and locale crackpot Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden), and blames their situation on Judgment Day and starts to convert people to her radical beliefs.
Things get even worse when creatures from the mist get into the store and attack the people which forces Frank and company to take a risky trip to the neighboring drug store in an attempt to gain much needed medical supplies.
In short order the situation gets even worse as Frank and his supporters are faced to contend not only with the creatures in the mist, but the growing threat from Mrs. Carmody and her fanatics who have adapted a mob mentality towards anyone they think is a non-believer.
What follows is a thrilling series of events that leads to one of the most shocking and memorable finale acts that will stay with you long after the film has ended.
There has been much made of the decision to add a proper ending to the story instead of the nebulous ending in the story where nothing was truly resolved. I think this decision was wise, as being a fan of the story; I was a bit frustrated that there was not final outcome in the story and I was left with more questions than answers when the story ended.
Darabont has crafted a finale that is sure to upset some people and please others, but credit has to be given for crafting an ending that does not take the standard Hollywood outs.
The cast is strong, and the FX and Gore are restrained to the point that they do not overshadow what is essentially a drama about people in an extra-ordinary situation, and what happens when the rules and creature comforts of society collapse.
While the film will not break new ground in the horror genre, it is one of the best adaptation of a King story, and is very entertaining.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Horreos in Tabletop Games
Jan 23, 2022
I’m not a huge history buff or anything, but I am definitely interested in my family lineage/ancestry. What does that have to do with this game? Well, with the last name Rodriguez, I’m sure you guessed that there’s some Spanish heritage in my background. My Dad will often talk about how our family originally came from Spain a loooooong time ago. Specifically from Galicia, Spain. So when I saw this ButtonShy game based on the real-life location of Galicia, my roots were calling to me and I had to get it. Hórreos gives us a small glimpse into life in 18th century Galicia – and it sounds pretty great!
Hórreos is a 2-player game in which players are competing to build the most effective and aesthetically pleasing hórreo in town. What is a hórreo? It is a building for storing grain, elevated from the ground to prevent rodents from infiltrating the structure. So in this game, players are building long and ornate hórreos that not only look stunning, but can keep the rats out of the grain! To setup for a game, each player receives 2 Action cards and the Hórreo cards are shuffled. The deck is placed between the players, and the top card is placed beside the deck to form a 2-card Market. The Leader card is placed beside the Market, facing the starting player. Pictured below is the setup for the beginning of a game.
Over a series of rounds, players will be taking 1 of 4 possible actions as they attempt to build the highest-scoring structure. Each player has 2 Action cards at their disposal. Each Action card has 2 possible Actions on it – one card is Sabotage or Plan, the other is Steal or Build. Both players will secretly choose whichever Action they wish to perform this turn, and place their card face-down in front of them. Players will then simultaneous reveal their chosen Actions, and they will be resolved in the following order – Sabotage, Plan, Steal, and Build. If a player has chosen to Sabotage, they will rotate their opponent’s Action card, forcing them to perform the other listed action this round. To perform the Plan action, the player will select one of the cards from the Market to be placed into their personal supply tableau. If you have chosen to Steal, you will select a card from your opponent’s supply, and take it into your own supply tableau. And finally, to Build is to move a card from your supply to your hórreo. Cards in your hórreo cannot be stolen. As with many other ButtonShy games, cards in your hórreo may be placed adjacent to, or even overlapping, previously played cards – cards may never be tucked under cards in your existing hórreo.
If both players have chosen the same action, the player with the Leader card facing them gets to decide which player will resolve their action first. The Leader card is then rotated to face the opposite player, and so on, for future ‘ties’. An important note – you cannot pick the same Action twice in a row, you must pick one of the other 3 Actions. So take that strategic tidbit into consideration when deciding what to do each round! The game continues in this fashion, with players selecting/simultaneously revealing Actions, resolving their Actions in order, and building their hórreo until there is 1 or fewer cards left in the Market and the players’ supplies at the end of a round. At that point, the game ends, points are tallied, and the winner is declared!
Points are scored in several ways. Most of the hórreo cards are ‘decorated’ with crosses and pikes, and each pair you have in your final hórreo will earn you points. Similarly, the number of doors in your hórreo, as well as adjacent pillars supporting your structure, will earn you points dependent upon the number (the more doors you have, the more points you earn, etc.). As mentioned earlier, you’re trying to keep these pesky rats out of your grain, so any rat pictured on your cards is worth -2 points, but each owl you have pictured eats (cancels out) one rat. And of course, whichever player has build the longest hórreo earns extra points. All points are tallied, and the player with the highest score is the winner!
I have to admit that Hórreos surprised me. The gameplay seems simple enough, so I honestly wasn’t really expecting a lot from this game. For such a small game, Hórreos is all about strategy. Each round, you only have 4 Actions from which to choose, and that really forces you to think long-term with your strategy. But at the same time, since Actions are revealed simultaneously and resolved in a set order, you have to consider what your opponent might do. For example, the Sabotage action forces the opposing player to use the other Action of their chosen card this round. Can you bluff your opponent into playing that Sabotage, forcing you to switch Actions, thus letting you perform the Action you really wanted to perform? That goes hand in hand with the fact that you cannot choose the same Action twice in a row. Can you anticipate your opponents moves to benefit your strategy? Or will you be out of touch, and thus be forced to essentially waste a turn performing an Action that you actually didn’t want to? And don’t forget the Leader card – if players both pick the same Action, the Leader can decide who resolves first. Maybe it’s strategically better to let your opponent resolve first, so then you can just negate what they just did, or vice versa.
To touch on components for a minute, this is a game of 18 cards in a wallet. So nothing out of the ordinary for ButtonShy. That being said, production quality is always top notch with these games, and I have no complaints. the cards are thick and sturdy, and the wallet is nice and supportive. The artwork is thematic and refreshing, while not being too overwhelming. Is it the most beautiful game I’ve ever seen? No. But it is aesthetically and thematically appropriate, and gives a serene and peaceful vibe. ButtonShy has yet to disappoint with their components, so I am definitely a big fan!
Hórreos is a pretty solid game. I’m not personally a huge fan of ‘take that’ type games, and there is an element of that in this gameplay. But there seems to be enough strategy needed to negate some of that direct competitiveness. The game itself is fast to teach, learn, and play, and that adds to the overall appeal. It’s not necessarily my favorite 2-player game, but it’s one that I can see myself pulling out often when I’ve got a quick minute between other games, or when I’ve got a little downtime. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a structural 4 / 6. Check it out if you’re in the market for something small, yet strategic!
Hórreos is a 2-player game in which players are competing to build the most effective and aesthetically pleasing hórreo in town. What is a hórreo? It is a building for storing grain, elevated from the ground to prevent rodents from infiltrating the structure. So in this game, players are building long and ornate hórreos that not only look stunning, but can keep the rats out of the grain! To setup for a game, each player receives 2 Action cards and the Hórreo cards are shuffled. The deck is placed between the players, and the top card is placed beside the deck to form a 2-card Market. The Leader card is placed beside the Market, facing the starting player. Pictured below is the setup for the beginning of a game.
Over a series of rounds, players will be taking 1 of 4 possible actions as they attempt to build the highest-scoring structure. Each player has 2 Action cards at their disposal. Each Action card has 2 possible Actions on it – one card is Sabotage or Plan, the other is Steal or Build. Both players will secretly choose whichever Action they wish to perform this turn, and place their card face-down in front of them. Players will then simultaneous reveal their chosen Actions, and they will be resolved in the following order – Sabotage, Plan, Steal, and Build. If a player has chosen to Sabotage, they will rotate their opponent’s Action card, forcing them to perform the other listed action this round. To perform the Plan action, the player will select one of the cards from the Market to be placed into their personal supply tableau. If you have chosen to Steal, you will select a card from your opponent’s supply, and take it into your own supply tableau. And finally, to Build is to move a card from your supply to your hórreo. Cards in your hórreo cannot be stolen. As with many other ButtonShy games, cards in your hórreo may be placed adjacent to, or even overlapping, previously played cards – cards may never be tucked under cards in your existing hórreo.
If both players have chosen the same action, the player with the Leader card facing them gets to decide which player will resolve their action first. The Leader card is then rotated to face the opposite player, and so on, for future ‘ties’. An important note – you cannot pick the same Action twice in a row, you must pick one of the other 3 Actions. So take that strategic tidbit into consideration when deciding what to do each round! The game continues in this fashion, with players selecting/simultaneously revealing Actions, resolving their Actions in order, and building their hórreo until there is 1 or fewer cards left in the Market and the players’ supplies at the end of a round. At that point, the game ends, points are tallied, and the winner is declared!
Points are scored in several ways. Most of the hórreo cards are ‘decorated’ with crosses and pikes, and each pair you have in your final hórreo will earn you points. Similarly, the number of doors in your hórreo, as well as adjacent pillars supporting your structure, will earn you points dependent upon the number (the more doors you have, the more points you earn, etc.). As mentioned earlier, you’re trying to keep these pesky rats out of your grain, so any rat pictured on your cards is worth -2 points, but each owl you have pictured eats (cancels out) one rat. And of course, whichever player has build the longest hórreo earns extra points. All points are tallied, and the player with the highest score is the winner!
I have to admit that Hórreos surprised me. The gameplay seems simple enough, so I honestly wasn’t really expecting a lot from this game. For such a small game, Hórreos is all about strategy. Each round, you only have 4 Actions from which to choose, and that really forces you to think long-term with your strategy. But at the same time, since Actions are revealed simultaneously and resolved in a set order, you have to consider what your opponent might do. For example, the Sabotage action forces the opposing player to use the other Action of their chosen card this round. Can you bluff your opponent into playing that Sabotage, forcing you to switch Actions, thus letting you perform the Action you really wanted to perform? That goes hand in hand with the fact that you cannot choose the same Action twice in a row. Can you anticipate your opponents moves to benefit your strategy? Or will you be out of touch, and thus be forced to essentially waste a turn performing an Action that you actually didn’t want to? And don’t forget the Leader card – if players both pick the same Action, the Leader can decide who resolves first. Maybe it’s strategically better to let your opponent resolve first, so then you can just negate what they just did, or vice versa.
To touch on components for a minute, this is a game of 18 cards in a wallet. So nothing out of the ordinary for ButtonShy. That being said, production quality is always top notch with these games, and I have no complaints. the cards are thick and sturdy, and the wallet is nice and supportive. The artwork is thematic and refreshing, while not being too overwhelming. Is it the most beautiful game I’ve ever seen? No. But it is aesthetically and thematically appropriate, and gives a serene and peaceful vibe. ButtonShy has yet to disappoint with their components, so I am definitely a big fan!
Hórreos is a pretty solid game. I’m not personally a huge fan of ‘take that’ type games, and there is an element of that in this gameplay. But there seems to be enough strategy needed to negate some of that direct competitiveness. The game itself is fast to teach, learn, and play, and that adds to the overall appeal. It’s not necessarily my favorite 2-player game, but it’s one that I can see myself pulling out often when I’ve got a quick minute between other games, or when I’ve got a little downtime. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a structural 4 / 6. Check it out if you’re in the market for something small, yet strategic!
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Breakdown in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Read my review here: https://bookbumzuky.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/review-the-breakdown-by-b-a-paris/
<i><b>Synopsis:</b> On a stormy night, Cass decides to go against the wishes of her husband and take a dangerous shortcut home. Passing through the rural wooded road, she notices a car pulled up with a woman sat inside. After pulling over to help, Cass gets a weird feeling - why hasn’t the woman in the car shown relief at someone pulling over? Why has she not moved from her spot in the seat, just staring blankly out of the windscreen? Feeling spooked, Cass decides to drive off. The next morning she finds out that the woman is dead, “brutally murdered”, as the police say.
Cass can’t shake the guilt she feels at leaving the woman alone, and soon, the guilt is all she can focus on. She’s started to forget things, like when she bought an alarm system or inviting her friends over, but what she can’t forget is leaving the woman on her own, on a stormy night, to be murdered. She also can’t forget the silent phones calls she’s receiving and the horrible feeling that she’s being watched.</i>
---
After the huge success of <i>Behind Closed Doors</i>, B A Paris had a lot to live up to with this second novel, and for me, it wasn’t anywhere near as good. It didn’t grab me as well as the last. The tension was built just as well in this, steady and slowly, but it was the actual plot that I wasn’t connecting with. It seemed a bit outlandish and didn’t keep me on my toes quite as much. Annoyingly, someone hadn’t marked the spoilers in their review of this, so about halfway through reading the novel, the twist was “ruined”, but, to be honest, the ending was very predictable and I had already sussed it by the time I read that person’s review, so it wasn't that big of a deal.
Another problem with this book was the lack of character development. While we felt so attached to Grace and eager for her to be rid of the troubles in her life, I didn’t find myself thinking the same for Cass. In all honesty, she was a bit of a drip and was so overly hysterical that she just became annoying to read about. Our other, more side characters, Matthew and Rachel, were flat, soppy and unrealistic.
<spoiler>The texts between Matthew and Rachel, at the end of the novel, were really irritating that I ended up skipping over them. Why would we need to see what they said to each other when we already know what they had done? It was just rehashing parts of the plot that we could have sussed was them…</spoiler>
I hate to say such negative things about this novel, but I just don’t get the hype. The story has been done a million times before, and in better ways, too. Maybe I think so badly of this novel because Paris’ last was so great, but there is no comparison between the two.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Harlequin UK Ltd for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
<i><b>Synopsis:</b> On a stormy night, Cass decides to go against the wishes of her husband and take a dangerous shortcut home. Passing through the rural wooded road, she notices a car pulled up with a woman sat inside. After pulling over to help, Cass gets a weird feeling - why hasn’t the woman in the car shown relief at someone pulling over? Why has she not moved from her spot in the seat, just staring blankly out of the windscreen? Feeling spooked, Cass decides to drive off. The next morning she finds out that the woman is dead, “brutally murdered”, as the police say.
Cass can’t shake the guilt she feels at leaving the woman alone, and soon, the guilt is all she can focus on. She’s started to forget things, like when she bought an alarm system or inviting her friends over, but what she can’t forget is leaving the woman on her own, on a stormy night, to be murdered. She also can’t forget the silent phones calls she’s receiving and the horrible feeling that she’s being watched.</i>
---
After the huge success of <i>Behind Closed Doors</i>, B A Paris had a lot to live up to with this second novel, and for me, it wasn’t anywhere near as good. It didn’t grab me as well as the last. The tension was built just as well in this, steady and slowly, but it was the actual plot that I wasn’t connecting with. It seemed a bit outlandish and didn’t keep me on my toes quite as much. Annoyingly, someone hadn’t marked the spoilers in their review of this, so about halfway through reading the novel, the twist was “ruined”, but, to be honest, the ending was very predictable and I had already sussed it by the time I read that person’s review, so it wasn't that big of a deal.
Another problem with this book was the lack of character development. While we felt so attached to Grace and eager for her to be rid of the troubles in her life, I didn’t find myself thinking the same for Cass. In all honesty, she was a bit of a drip and was so overly hysterical that she just became annoying to read about. Our other, more side characters, Matthew and Rachel, were flat, soppy and unrealistic.
<spoiler>The texts between Matthew and Rachel, at the end of the novel, were really irritating that I ended up skipping over them. Why would we need to see what they said to each other when we already know what they had done? It was just rehashing parts of the plot that we could have sussed was them…</spoiler>
I hate to say such negative things about this novel, but I just don’t get the hype. The story has been done a million times before, and in better ways, too. Maybe I think so badly of this novel because Paris’ last was so great, but there is no comparison between the two.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Harlequin UK Ltd for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A film worth getting into your life.
Reviewing documentaries is always a bit tricky, since it is often difficult to separate the quality of the film making from your emotional attachment to the subject material. In my case, my early life was saturated with Beatlemania. Although I was only 2 year’s old in 1963 at the start of it all, I had three older siblings who ramped up the excitement so much that it permeated my young mind. I still remember being vehemently “Sssshhed” since I was making too much noise during the live and ground-breaking “All you need is Love” telecast!
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
Moonly
Education, Lifestyle and Reference
10.0
Rate It
App
Full guide of lunar cycles & phases. Daily affirmations. Astrology zodiac charts Live by the moon...
Astrology Moon Moon Phases Lunar Cycle Spirituality
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A new franchise is reborn
It seems that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has kicked off a trend over in tinseltown. Shared franchises are all the rage at the moment, and why not. Marvel has taken over $10billion. DC has finally found its footing with Wonder Woman and Legendary are fusing Godzilla with Kong: Skull Island to create their own monster universe.
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
Toddler’s Farm Animals sounds, Baby Animal Puzzles
Education and Games
App
A must-have for TODDLERS and PRESCHOOLERS! Learn and play with cute animated farm animals in 14...
Feed Animals: Toddler games for 1 2 3 4 year olds
Education and Games
App
A must-have for TODDLERS and PRESCHOOLERS! Learn and play with cute animated farm animals in 14...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Elizabeth Sloane (Jessica Chastain) is one of the most sought-after lobbyists in Washington, D.C. In Miss Sloane, she represents clients on both domestic and international issues ranging from environment and ecological concerns like palm oil to more volatile topics as 2nd Amendment issues.
At a point, Elizabeth sees a crossroads on the horizon and leaves her prestigious firm to take up the fight for gun control with a much smaller firm with less resources, money, and personnel. She is not necessarily “fighting the good fight,” rather, she wants to prove that she can win.
Winning, to her, is all that matters. It matters more than the issues and clients she represents. It matters more than any relationships that she could foster throughout her career. Winning, and her legacy as a winner, is what matters.
The film is a simple approach to something that is sorely needed in the film world outside of the realm of sci-fi: a strong female lead character. Elizabeth is a cut throat lobbyist who is focused on her end goal. In pursuing her outcomes, she sees people as obstacles that she must either maneuver around or go through.
She presents an image that she is a cold, calculating megalomaniacal individual. When behind closed doors, the audience is able to see who she really is: human. Elizabeth finds herself stuck in a world of deception, power, and money. She doesn’t know how to escape in one piece. In fact, she doesn’t know how to escape. Her identity is wrapped up into her profession.
Her reputation is what draws people in and keeps others at bay. When she undergoes a congressional hearing about regulations violations, she finds out how easily this empire that she built could crumble down, or, at least, that is what she lets others think.
The film is strong in its approach to a world that much of the audience is only familiar with during election years as candidates rail against lobbying or are exposed for their close connections to these organizations.
It is not overly ambitious nor does it dumb down the material and dialogue to offer a sense of “universal appeal.” The intrigue will keep audiences fully focused on speculating as to what her next move will be in trying to outmaneuver everyone who seems to be opposed to her.
Her rivals, as well as the audience, will be captivated to the end. Miss Sloane is a political thriller that rivals films like All the President’s Men and The Candidate. It doesn’t disappoint.
At a point, Elizabeth sees a crossroads on the horizon and leaves her prestigious firm to take up the fight for gun control with a much smaller firm with less resources, money, and personnel. She is not necessarily “fighting the good fight,” rather, she wants to prove that she can win.
Winning, to her, is all that matters. It matters more than the issues and clients she represents. It matters more than any relationships that she could foster throughout her career. Winning, and her legacy as a winner, is what matters.
The film is a simple approach to something that is sorely needed in the film world outside of the realm of sci-fi: a strong female lead character. Elizabeth is a cut throat lobbyist who is focused on her end goal. In pursuing her outcomes, she sees people as obstacles that she must either maneuver around or go through.
She presents an image that she is a cold, calculating megalomaniacal individual. When behind closed doors, the audience is able to see who she really is: human. Elizabeth finds herself stuck in a world of deception, power, and money. She doesn’t know how to escape in one piece. In fact, she doesn’t know how to escape. Her identity is wrapped up into her profession.
Her reputation is what draws people in and keeps others at bay. When she undergoes a congressional hearing about regulations violations, she finds out how easily this empire that she built could crumble down, or, at least, that is what she lets others think.
The film is strong in its approach to a world that much of the audience is only familiar with during election years as candidates rail against lobbying or are exposed for their close connections to these organizations.
It is not overly ambitious nor does it dumb down the material and dialogue to offer a sense of “universal appeal.” The intrigue will keep audiences fully focused on speculating as to what her next move will be in trying to outmaneuver everyone who seems to be opposed to her.
Her rivals, as well as the audience, will be captivated to the end. Miss Sloane is a political thriller that rivals films like All the President’s Men and The Candidate. It doesn’t disappoint.