Search
Search results
Kevin Phillipson (9943 KP) rated The Good Life in TV
Jun 15, 2018
Richard briers (1 more)
Felictly kendal
One of the altime classic 70s sitcoms one of my favorite comedys growing up in 70s richard briers is perfectly cast as tom goode who gives up his day job to be come self sufficent felictly kendal plays his wife barbara plus penople keith and paul eddington play the neighbours classic sitcom always love to rewatch the reruns
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated The Wild Storm, Vol. 2 in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I am old enough to remember when Jean Grey became Dark Phoenix. I am also old enough to remember reading all the Image Comics titles in the 90's, because they were cool! Not all of them (*cough* Rob Liefeld's YOUNGBLOOD and assorted other titles he helmed) were good, but some, like WILDC.A.T.s and WETWORKS, were a little cooler and better other than the aforementioned titles. Those "cooler" books split off and became a separate publishing imprint, Wildstorm. Unfortunately, some things, not unlike THE A-TEAM or THE GREATEST AMERICAN HERO, don't hold up as well, but they will always hold a "special spot" in our nerdy, li'l hearts!
In the late 90's, a writer came onboard looking to revamp one of the so-so books, STORMWATCH. That writer was Warren Ellis, and the series that spun out of the revamped STORMWATCH was THE AUTHORITY. With that book, Ellis made one hell of an impression with a lot of people, myself included, earning him, and THE AUTHORITY, a very high spot on the Nerd Chart.
I skipped out when, in 2017 (I think), DC Comics absorbed the Wildstorm characters/books, making them "exist" in the same comics universe as Superman and Batman!
Jump ahead to 2018. Warren Ellis approaches DC, offering THE WILD STORM, a massive (24 issues!) reboot of the Wildstorm universe. They greenlight it. And, what a ride!
Forget everything about the 90s WILDC.A.T.s, Grifter, even THE AUTHORITY. This is a blank slate, with so much potential!
Volume 2, reprinting issues 7-12, is just.. words elude me. It's not mind-numbing like a lot of what Marvel and DC are churning out of late, but it certainly makes my brain itch. Watching familiar faces being reworked and presented in a totally different way is fun and interesting at the same time. It's also equally entertaining to see equally familiar plots and sub-plots taken apart and put back together in an uniquely satisfying way.
The series is not TOO wordy, yet wordy enough that the story gives us much to chew on and reflect long after this volume, or any of the individual issues themselves, are read. My hat goes off to Warren Ellis, for he has clear outdone himself, something I did not think could be done!
However, as much as I was taken in by Ellis' writing, it is also worth noting Jon Davis-Hunt's art. At times, he reminded me of Keith Giffen's LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES work (back when Tom and Mary Bierbaum were writing it), simple, at first viewing, but further study shows so much more in each panel. I felt his art suits the angle that Ellis is shooting for, and for that, I am glad that he seems to be invested in the art until the 24th, and final, issue of the series is completed.
Look, plain and simple. Go read Volume, because you will most certainly want to read this volume, and then, Volume 3, when it comes out in March. This is a smart series, and if you are old enough to remember the 90s Wildstorm characters (like me), you'll be sorry if you don't check it out! 'Nuff said!
In the late 90's, a writer came onboard looking to revamp one of the so-so books, STORMWATCH. That writer was Warren Ellis, and the series that spun out of the revamped STORMWATCH was THE AUTHORITY. With that book, Ellis made one hell of an impression with a lot of people, myself included, earning him, and THE AUTHORITY, a very high spot on the Nerd Chart.
I skipped out when, in 2017 (I think), DC Comics absorbed the Wildstorm characters/books, making them "exist" in the same comics universe as Superman and Batman!
Jump ahead to 2018. Warren Ellis approaches DC, offering THE WILD STORM, a massive (24 issues!) reboot of the Wildstorm universe. They greenlight it. And, what a ride!
Forget everything about the 90s WILDC.A.T.s, Grifter, even THE AUTHORITY. This is a blank slate, with so much potential!
Volume 2, reprinting issues 7-12, is just.. words elude me. It's not mind-numbing like a lot of what Marvel and DC are churning out of late, but it certainly makes my brain itch. Watching familiar faces being reworked and presented in a totally different way is fun and interesting at the same time. It's also equally entertaining to see equally familiar plots and sub-plots taken apart and put back together in an uniquely satisfying way.
The series is not TOO wordy, yet wordy enough that the story gives us much to chew on and reflect long after this volume, or any of the individual issues themselves, are read. My hat goes off to Warren Ellis, for he has clear outdone himself, something I did not think could be done!
However, as much as I was taken in by Ellis' writing, it is also worth noting Jon Davis-Hunt's art. At times, he reminded me of Keith Giffen's LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES work (back when Tom and Mary Bierbaum were writing it), simple, at first viewing, but further study shows so much more in each panel. I felt his art suits the angle that Ellis is shooting for, and for that, I am glad that he seems to be invested in the art until the 24th, and final, issue of the series is completed.
Look, plain and simple. Go read Volume, because you will most certainly want to read this volume, and then, Volume 3, when it comes out in March. This is a smart series, and if you are old enough to remember the 90s Wildstorm characters (like me), you'll be sorry if you don't check it out! 'Nuff said!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).