Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
This is an interesting piece. Originally commissioned for a 30 minute documentary piece, Peter Jackson found so much footage and so many stories to tell that he managed to extend it into a feature length production.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Arrow in TV
May 13, 2018
Closer to the comics than people think (5 more)
Great cast
Intriguing characters
Brilliant character development
Great drama
Great references to the comics
Some characters become annoying (1 more)
Not all seasons are consistent with quality
You Have (not) failed this series!
First of all I should tell you that Green Arrow is my all time favourite comic character so this review might have some bias but I'll keep it to a minimum because I am not blinded by this shows faults of which it's had quite a few.
When I first saw the trailer for Arrow I was hooked. Finally, a show about Green Arrow, one of the less popular heroes these days and one of the many heroes that makes the people who only watch comic book films, say "Who the hell is that?".
Series one had me hooked with great drama, and incredible action that made the week long wait for each episode painful. The drama was intense as we watch Oliver Queen trying to juggle his two lives as both Oliver Queen and Arrow (currently called the Vigilante or The Hood during season 1), as he tries to keep his night time activities as a vigilante a secret.
The faults of this series reside in some of the dialogue and characters who I won't name because it's not really down to one particular character as others do the same though some get more blame than others. The point is, some of the drama in the show is unnecessary and sometimes it's all over the place going from "I love you" to "never talk to me again" within seconds for very stupid reasons. If you can get past that though, you'll see a lot more of Green Arrow in the show than you realise.
One of the main things I love about this show is seeing Oliver Queen take on real life issues as well as comic book villains. Issues such as his sister taking drugs which, due to her childhood nickname being 'Speedy', is a reference to Green Lantern/Green Arrow #85 and #86 where Green Arrow finds out that Roy Harper is a drug addict. By making the series version about his sister however, makes the situation more personal which means it messes with Olivers head when he's out hunting the drug suppliers.
The villains have all been great in the series, even though not all have been praised. Malcom Merlyn as the first villain was a good choice because he's one of the few original Green Arrow Villains from comics and John Barrowman was a brilliant choice of casting. Deathstroke then took it up a notch and really made the series great, and his season is possibly still one of the best seasons (season 2). Ras Al Ghul was a very intense series and although everyone moaned that Arrow had become too much like Batman, but Arrow made it their own and made a brilliantly intense series with some great twists that at the time I was like "please don't end it like this...." Or... "Where do they go from here?" And Everytime I thought they might have made a mistake with a certain plot point, they proved me wrong.
Damien Darkh was probably one of the lesser great villains. The casting was perfect, because Damien Darkh was so menacing and so brilliantly evil with a human side to him at certain points, but I don't think personally, they should have brought magic into Arrow, because it added too many scenes where you thought "why would you even try this?" Or "why did he not do this and this moment". But unlike many I actually enjoyed Damien Darkh as a villain because the characters and intense story were brilliantly chosen and executed.
The last two seasons (5 & 6) have been really intense and incredibly action packed as Green Arrow and Team Arrow try to take on what feels like the world.
The downfalls of the series include some of the drama being not entirely necessary. We understand as an audience that tensions build and everyone has a thousand and one problems that they have to deal with, but everyone seems to unleash them all at once. I understand wanting to build the feeling that everything is falling apart, but it happens soooo much, and it's hard to sympathise with certain scenarios because of it.
Another slight issue is the love interests. If you know Green Arrow, then you know he's a bit of a ladies man and that he can often be caught flirting and more with many women, in the show, we see this done well but at the end of the day it aaaallllwaayyyss comes back to Olicity. Oliver and Felicity's love story has had so many ups and downs and they've fallen in and out of love so many times and whilst I love Felicity as a character and a member of the team, the love rollercoaster she is on with Oliver reaaalllyyy annoys me at times, but I try to look past it and everything's seems to be okay.
Overall though this is one of my favourite shows and I prefer it to The Flash though The Flash has had some better seasons than Arrow has. I can't wait to see what else the show brings to the screen as it has already brought many obscure characters such as Cupid, Vigilante, Prometheus, Bronze Tiger and more!
When I first saw the trailer for Arrow I was hooked. Finally, a show about Green Arrow, one of the less popular heroes these days and one of the many heroes that makes the people who only watch comic book films, say "Who the hell is that?".
Series one had me hooked with great drama, and incredible action that made the week long wait for each episode painful. The drama was intense as we watch Oliver Queen trying to juggle his two lives as both Oliver Queen and Arrow (currently called the Vigilante or The Hood during season 1), as he tries to keep his night time activities as a vigilante a secret.
The faults of this series reside in some of the dialogue and characters who I won't name because it's not really down to one particular character as others do the same though some get more blame than others. The point is, some of the drama in the show is unnecessary and sometimes it's all over the place going from "I love you" to "never talk to me again" within seconds for very stupid reasons. If you can get past that though, you'll see a lot more of Green Arrow in the show than you realise.
One of the main things I love about this show is seeing Oliver Queen take on real life issues as well as comic book villains. Issues such as his sister taking drugs which, due to her childhood nickname being 'Speedy', is a reference to Green Lantern/Green Arrow #85 and #86 where Green Arrow finds out that Roy Harper is a drug addict. By making the series version about his sister however, makes the situation more personal which means it messes with Olivers head when he's out hunting the drug suppliers.
The villains have all been great in the series, even though not all have been praised. Malcom Merlyn as the first villain was a good choice because he's one of the few original Green Arrow Villains from comics and John Barrowman was a brilliant choice of casting. Deathstroke then took it up a notch and really made the series great, and his season is possibly still one of the best seasons (season 2). Ras Al Ghul was a very intense series and although everyone moaned that Arrow had become too much like Batman, but Arrow made it their own and made a brilliantly intense series with some great twists that at the time I was like "please don't end it like this...." Or... "Where do they go from here?" And Everytime I thought they might have made a mistake with a certain plot point, they proved me wrong.
Damien Darkh was probably one of the lesser great villains. The casting was perfect, because Damien Darkh was so menacing and so brilliantly evil with a human side to him at certain points, but I don't think personally, they should have brought magic into Arrow, because it added too many scenes where you thought "why would you even try this?" Or "why did he not do this and this moment". But unlike many I actually enjoyed Damien Darkh as a villain because the characters and intense story were brilliantly chosen and executed.
The last two seasons (5 & 6) have been really intense and incredibly action packed as Green Arrow and Team Arrow try to take on what feels like the world.
The downfalls of the series include some of the drama being not entirely necessary. We understand as an audience that tensions build and everyone has a thousand and one problems that they have to deal with, but everyone seems to unleash them all at once. I understand wanting to build the feeling that everything is falling apart, but it happens soooo much, and it's hard to sympathise with certain scenarios because of it.
Another slight issue is the love interests. If you know Green Arrow, then you know he's a bit of a ladies man and that he can often be caught flirting and more with many women, in the show, we see this done well but at the end of the day it aaaallllwaayyyss comes back to Olicity. Oliver and Felicity's love story has had so many ups and downs and they've fallen in and out of love so many times and whilst I love Felicity as a character and a member of the team, the love rollercoaster she is on with Oliver reaaalllyyy annoys me at times, but I try to look past it and everything's seems to be okay.
Overall though this is one of my favourite shows and I prefer it to The Flash though The Flash has had some better seasons than Arrow has. I can't wait to see what else the show brings to the screen as it has already brought many obscure characters such as Cupid, Vigilante, Prometheus, Bronze Tiger and more!
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Fury of Fire (Dragonfury, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b>NOTE:</b> I did not finish Fury of Fire. I reached page 207, out of 412, before I called it quits. My review reflects on what I read and no more, which is more than enough to be indicative to how the author creates her book.
During the course of reading, everyone comes across a book that just doesn't connect with them. That doesn't mean the book is bad or that others shouldn't read it, it just means the it isn't a good fit that particular person. This is that book for me. I had a very difficult time getting through what I read, mostly due to a bunch of little things that stood out and were what I consider oddities, especially in context to situations in the book. If I had to describe this book in one word, it'd be abrasive. The characters, the dialogue, and most importantly, the writing felt like rubbing sandpaper over a wound. Over and over again.
<b>THE BAD</b>
The constant bombardment of internalizing that both Myst and Bastian provide in this book was like a splinter under my fingernail. The more I dug, the more painful it became, and I started to dislike the book and main characters more and more as I read on. Admittedly, it was pretty easy to loathe Bastian and Myst when it became apparent that they are both boring and stupid, and I didn't find Bastian all that likeable in the first place. Call me crazy, but I just feel uneasy when a character wants to immediately jump the bones of a person he just met in horrific situation while she is frightened beyond belief. But apparently that's okay because he acknowledges his creepiness in a fit of mental self-flagellation. Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. Maybe if that had been mentioned only once, I would have let it slide, but it keeps on like that for way too long. Apparently he's all alpha on the outside and emo on the inside. What a winning combination! Not. Myst herself starts off, uh, decent enough but then quickly becomes the nitwit I was hoping to avoid. She gets the fastest case of Stockholm Syndrome I've ever come across. For all intents and purposes, Bastian kidnapped her. Sure, we the readers know it's for Myst and the baby's safety from the evil Razorbacks, but she certainly doesn't know that, therefore I found her reactions extremely unrealistic and bizarre to the situations she was in. One minute she's fighting, and by fighting I mean being stubbornly spunky, or somewhat thinking of escape, the next she's imagining wild, hot monkey sex with Bastian. I'm sorry but if some big, six-foot-six (apparently every male is 6'6 in this book, even the human cop. Obviously, if a guy is under that height, he's not really a man.), scary dude who can turn into a dragon kidnaps me, I am so not going to be thinking about how hot they are or what they're like in the sack. Yeah, uh-huh, that makes perfect sense. Oy! Anyway, they end up making out that night due to Bastian's alpha going crazy and some supernatural roofie that dragons put out to females. God, this is not romantic at all. And it's only been a few hours since they "met"! The morning after Myst is kidnapped, she wakes up naked and finds out Bastian bathed her, can you say mondo creepy? So after she dresses, she goes meandering through the Nightfury's lair, admiring his artwork and crap, then ends up in the kitchen with the rest of the freaky-tall Nightfuries. I'd be high-tailing it out of there, in fact, I would have been plotting escape long before this point. It appears she only thinks of escape once a day. While she's in the kitchen, Bastian has her sit at the table so she can eat her breakfast. He sets down a plate in front of her and as she goes to have a bite, she notices he cut her waffles into little, perfect, bite-size pieces and she's apparently overcome by this act. How weird is that?! All feminist angles aside, who cuts up someone else's food unless: A, it's for a small child, two, their arms and hands are broken, or D, they're handicapped in some way that prevents them from feeding themselves? W.T.F.? Frankly, I think it's just odd. And then she gets misty-eyed (Myst is all misty, how cute. *gag*) when he asks her to help name the baby he kidnapped. I've already doubted her sanity before but now it's gone to even more ridiculous heights by this point.
The magical Rohypnol I mentioned before creeped me the heck out. So when a dragon guy needs his energy fix, he picks out a woman, roofies her, feeds off her energy, sleeps with her, and then wipes her memory! Say what? That's too close to rape for my liking. This wasn't just the bad guys doing this, but the next book's "hero" did that to a woman in a hospital (note: she wasn't a patient, I think she was a researcher or something, I don't remember). How sweet.
The excessive swearing needed edited down. Normally I don't mind a little cursing here and there, but so much of it didn't need to be added to the dialogue or characters and showed a lack of creativity.
The "dragons" are really shape-shifting vampires. They have to feed off women, only it's energy instead of blood, they can't be out in the sun, they heal quickly, live a long time, are super-strong, amongst other attributes. If you're going to have shape-shifting dragons, don't make them so similar to other paranormal species. Differentiate them so they're unique, not a near-clone.
I didn't like the whole reading of minds thing. If it was something that happened when mated, fine, but I don't like the thought of someone just arbitrarily getting into someone else's brain whenever they want. It's a violation. Bastian did this to Myst way too often.
The characters sound a lot like each other. They don't all have individual voices so there isn't much beyond a name separating one from the other.
<b>THE GOOD</b>
The first fight scene was actually quite well-done, although it was very early on in the book so it might not hold up on a second reading. The next fight scene wasn't too bad, maybe a little confusing at times.
The other characters in the Dragonfury series have the potential to be more interesting if they can be given some individuality, but since I didn't connect with the author's writing style and don't like most of the ideas, I won't be looking for any sequels to this oh-so-romantic series. I wouldn't recommend this book, but hey, if it sounds right up your alley or you have masochistic tendencies, by all means try it out for yourself.
As a final note, I just wanted to thank <a href="http://homealone.wikia.com/wiki/Buzz_McCallister"; target="_blank">Buzz McCallister</a> for his mad counting/alphabetizing skillz in writing this review. I couldn't have done it without you, buddy.
<img src="http://kindbooksandcoronets.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/buzzmccallister1.jpg">;
During the course of reading, everyone comes across a book that just doesn't connect with them. That doesn't mean the book is bad or that others shouldn't read it, it just means the it isn't a good fit that particular person. This is that book for me. I had a very difficult time getting through what I read, mostly due to a bunch of little things that stood out and were what I consider oddities, especially in context to situations in the book. If I had to describe this book in one word, it'd be abrasive. The characters, the dialogue, and most importantly, the writing felt like rubbing sandpaper over a wound. Over and over again.
<b>THE BAD</b>
The constant bombardment of internalizing that both Myst and Bastian provide in this book was like a splinter under my fingernail. The more I dug, the more painful it became, and I started to dislike the book and main characters more and more as I read on. Admittedly, it was pretty easy to loathe Bastian and Myst when it became apparent that they are both boring and stupid, and I didn't find Bastian all that likeable in the first place. Call me crazy, but I just feel uneasy when a character wants to immediately jump the bones of a person he just met in horrific situation while she is frightened beyond belief. But apparently that's okay because he acknowledges his creepiness in a fit of mental self-flagellation. Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. Maybe if that had been mentioned only once, I would have let it slide, but it keeps on like that for way too long. Apparently he's all alpha on the outside and emo on the inside. What a winning combination! Not. Myst herself starts off, uh, decent enough but then quickly becomes the nitwit I was hoping to avoid. She gets the fastest case of Stockholm Syndrome I've ever come across. For all intents and purposes, Bastian kidnapped her. Sure, we the readers know it's for Myst and the baby's safety from the evil Razorbacks, but she certainly doesn't know that, therefore I found her reactions extremely unrealistic and bizarre to the situations she was in. One minute she's fighting, and by fighting I mean being stubbornly spunky, or somewhat thinking of escape, the next she's imagining wild, hot monkey sex with Bastian. I'm sorry but if some big, six-foot-six (apparently every male is 6'6 in this book, even the human cop. Obviously, if a guy is under that height, he's not really a man.), scary dude who can turn into a dragon kidnaps me, I am so not going to be thinking about how hot they are or what they're like in the sack. Yeah, uh-huh, that makes perfect sense. Oy! Anyway, they end up making out that night due to Bastian's alpha going crazy and some supernatural roofie that dragons put out to females. God, this is not romantic at all. And it's only been a few hours since they "met"! The morning after Myst is kidnapped, she wakes up naked and finds out Bastian bathed her, can you say mondo creepy? So after she dresses, she goes meandering through the Nightfury's lair, admiring his artwork and crap, then ends up in the kitchen with the rest of the freaky-tall Nightfuries. I'd be high-tailing it out of there, in fact, I would have been plotting escape long before this point. It appears she only thinks of escape once a day. While she's in the kitchen, Bastian has her sit at the table so she can eat her breakfast. He sets down a plate in front of her and as she goes to have a bite, she notices he cut her waffles into little, perfect, bite-size pieces and she's apparently overcome by this act. How weird is that?! All feminist angles aside, who cuts up someone else's food unless: A, it's for a small child, two, their arms and hands are broken, or D, they're handicapped in some way that prevents them from feeding themselves? W.T.F.? Frankly, I think it's just odd. And then she gets misty-eyed (Myst is all misty, how cute. *gag*) when he asks her to help name the baby he kidnapped. I've already doubted her sanity before but now it's gone to even more ridiculous heights by this point.
The magical Rohypnol I mentioned before creeped me the heck out. So when a dragon guy needs his energy fix, he picks out a woman, roofies her, feeds off her energy, sleeps with her, and then wipes her memory! Say what? That's too close to rape for my liking. This wasn't just the bad guys doing this, but the next book's "hero" did that to a woman in a hospital (note: she wasn't a patient, I think she was a researcher or something, I don't remember). How sweet.
The excessive swearing needed edited down. Normally I don't mind a little cursing here and there, but so much of it didn't need to be added to the dialogue or characters and showed a lack of creativity.
The "dragons" are really shape-shifting vampires. They have to feed off women, only it's energy instead of blood, they can't be out in the sun, they heal quickly, live a long time, are super-strong, amongst other attributes. If you're going to have shape-shifting dragons, don't make them so similar to other paranormal species. Differentiate them so they're unique, not a near-clone.
I didn't like the whole reading of minds thing. If it was something that happened when mated, fine, but I don't like the thought of someone just arbitrarily getting into someone else's brain whenever they want. It's a violation. Bastian did this to Myst way too often.
The characters sound a lot like each other. They don't all have individual voices so there isn't much beyond a name separating one from the other.
<b>THE GOOD</b>
The first fight scene was actually quite well-done, although it was very early on in the book so it might not hold up on a second reading. The next fight scene wasn't too bad, maybe a little confusing at times.
The other characters in the Dragonfury series have the potential to be more interesting if they can be given some individuality, but since I didn't connect with the author's writing style and don't like most of the ideas, I won't be looking for any sequels to this oh-so-romantic series. I wouldn't recommend this book, but hey, if it sounds right up your alley or you have masochistic tendencies, by all means try it out for yourself.
As a final note, I just wanted to thank <a href="http://homealone.wikia.com/wiki/Buzz_McCallister"; target="_blank">Buzz McCallister</a> for his mad counting/alphabetizing skillz in writing this review. I couldn't have done it without you, buddy.
<img src="http://kindbooksandcoronets.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/buzzmccallister1.jpg">;
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Storms of Malhado in Books
May 18, 2020
I admit that when I read the book synopsis for Storms of Malhado by Maria Elena Sandovici and saw there were ghosts involved, I knew I had to read this book! While it turned out not to be so much of a ghost story but something much much more, it was still a great read!
I felt that the plot for Storms of Malhado was fairly original. The reader is taken through three different points in time starting in 1900 with Suzanne's story, followed by 1961 with Betty's story, and then to 2008 with Katie's story. We learn of how each woman is with a man that is slippery and unobtainable yet each woman yearns to make the relationship work. Each story leads up to a horrible hurricane from each year. What will each woman sacrifice for love, and will it lead up to their demise? Storms of Malhado is full of life lessons, the strongest being that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. There is so much symbolism throughout this novel which I didn't catch some of it until I finished reading and reflected back on what I had just read. Sandovici does a fantastic job at painting a beautiful picture of what life was like for each woman. It's easy to get lost in the narrative and forget you're only reading about the characters instead of living their life! The only thing about the plot that lets it down a little is the ending. It just felt a bit messy and confusing. I can't go into great detail because of spoilers. The ending, while I believe in what happened, just seemed a little far fetched and a little too neat if that makes sense. Three people experiencing the same thing at the same time and calling each other by different names, well, it just seemed kind of out there. I wish I could go into more detail, but I really don't want to give too much away. However, all loose ends are tied up by the end of book, and it becomes obvious how all three narratives within Storms of Malhado are related.
The majority of the characters in Storms of Malhado were well fleshed out and very realistic feeling. I enjoyed reading about Suzanne, Josephine, and Desmond. Suzanne was an interesting character to read about, but there were times she made me angry especially towards her ending. I could actually feel how much she loved and longed after Desmond. I just felt that she could be a little selfish at times. However, I feel that we've all been a little selfish when it comes to love. I could really feel how much Josephine loved Suzanne and wanted the best for her. Josephine was such a great character! Betty, Edna, and Cornelius also had an interesting story line. I felt like I connected with Betty the most. I could feel her frustration with Carl seeping through the pages as well as how much she wanted Cornelius no matter how frustrating he was. I loved Edna the most though, and it made me wish I had an Edna in my life to care for me and be there for me. Betty seemed to not have her head in the clouds as much as Suzanne did which was nice. The narrative I felt that was a little underdeveloped was that of Katie, her boyfriend George, and her mother. We don't get to read much about them until the very end. I would have liked more insight into George and Katie's relationship before the storm hits. The reader gets all this backstory into Suzanne's and Desmond's relationship as well as Betty's and Cornelius' relationship, yet there isn't much back story for Katie and George. All of a sudden towards the ending, we are told that Katie and George have a rocky relationship. I wanted to know why it was so rocky instead of just little bits and pieces. Katie's and George's relationship just felt like it was missing so much. The relationship between Katie and her mother also felt lacking. If her relationship was a strong with her mother as the relationship between Suzanne and Josephine as well as the relationship between Betty and Edna, it did not come across that way in the book. Katie's relationships just felt rushed.
Trigger warnings for Storms of Malhado include infidelity, adultery, alcohol use, death, drug use, some light profanity, and sexual situations (although not graphic).
All in all, Storms of Malhado is a highly interesting read that will leave you hooked on each and every word. It grabs you by the hand and doesn't let go until the end. With fantastic writing, a highly interesting plot, and entertaining characters, Storms of Malhado is a must read. I would definitely recommend Storms of Malhado by Maria Elena Sandovici to those aged 16+ who are after a book that will leave them thinking about it long after they are done reading it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Maria Elena Sandovici for providing me with a paperback of Storms of Malhado in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
I felt that the plot for Storms of Malhado was fairly original. The reader is taken through three different points in time starting in 1900 with Suzanne's story, followed by 1961 with Betty's story, and then to 2008 with Katie's story. We learn of how each woman is with a man that is slippery and unobtainable yet each woman yearns to make the relationship work. Each story leads up to a horrible hurricane from each year. What will each woman sacrifice for love, and will it lead up to their demise? Storms of Malhado is full of life lessons, the strongest being that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. There is so much symbolism throughout this novel which I didn't catch some of it until I finished reading and reflected back on what I had just read. Sandovici does a fantastic job at painting a beautiful picture of what life was like for each woman. It's easy to get lost in the narrative and forget you're only reading about the characters instead of living their life! The only thing about the plot that lets it down a little is the ending. It just felt a bit messy and confusing. I can't go into great detail because of spoilers. The ending, while I believe in what happened, just seemed a little far fetched and a little too neat if that makes sense. Three people experiencing the same thing at the same time and calling each other by different names, well, it just seemed kind of out there. I wish I could go into more detail, but I really don't want to give too much away. However, all loose ends are tied up by the end of book, and it becomes obvious how all three narratives within Storms of Malhado are related.
The majority of the characters in Storms of Malhado were well fleshed out and very realistic feeling. I enjoyed reading about Suzanne, Josephine, and Desmond. Suzanne was an interesting character to read about, but there were times she made me angry especially towards her ending. I could actually feel how much she loved and longed after Desmond. I just felt that she could be a little selfish at times. However, I feel that we've all been a little selfish when it comes to love. I could really feel how much Josephine loved Suzanne and wanted the best for her. Josephine was such a great character! Betty, Edna, and Cornelius also had an interesting story line. I felt like I connected with Betty the most. I could feel her frustration with Carl seeping through the pages as well as how much she wanted Cornelius no matter how frustrating he was. I loved Edna the most though, and it made me wish I had an Edna in my life to care for me and be there for me. Betty seemed to not have her head in the clouds as much as Suzanne did which was nice. The narrative I felt that was a little underdeveloped was that of Katie, her boyfriend George, and her mother. We don't get to read much about them until the very end. I would have liked more insight into George and Katie's relationship before the storm hits. The reader gets all this backstory into Suzanne's and Desmond's relationship as well as Betty's and Cornelius' relationship, yet there isn't much back story for Katie and George. All of a sudden towards the ending, we are told that Katie and George have a rocky relationship. I wanted to know why it was so rocky instead of just little bits and pieces. Katie's and George's relationship just felt like it was missing so much. The relationship between Katie and her mother also felt lacking. If her relationship was a strong with her mother as the relationship between Suzanne and Josephine as well as the relationship between Betty and Edna, it did not come across that way in the book. Katie's relationships just felt rushed.
Trigger warnings for Storms of Malhado include infidelity, adultery, alcohol use, death, drug use, some light profanity, and sexual situations (although not graphic).
All in all, Storms of Malhado is a highly interesting read that will leave you hooked on each and every word. It grabs you by the hand and doesn't let go until the end. With fantastic writing, a highly interesting plot, and entertaining characters, Storms of Malhado is a must read. I would definitely recommend Storms of Malhado by Maria Elena Sandovici to those aged 16+ who are after a book that will leave them thinking about it long after they are done reading it.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Maria Elena Sandovici for providing me with a paperback of Storms of Malhado in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Overpopulation is a growing problem in the world and two Doctors, Dr. Jorgen Asbjornsen (Rolf Lassgard) and Dr. Andreas Jacobsen (Soren Pilmark) have found what they believe is the answer. The have discovered how to shrink all kinds of living matter, including humans. Asbjornsen and a group of volunteers are shrunk and live for years before showing the world. They believe that they can help solve the worlds hunger crisis as well as overpopulation. When occupational therapist Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) first hears of this he is fascinated with the idea of doing something grand to help save the world. But it isn’t until years later when he and his wife, Audrey Safranek (Kristen Wiig), run into an old college friend, Dave Johnson (Jason Sudeikis), who has been shrunk that he realizes he might be able to have a better life at four inches tall. Because of how cheap everything is to build for new tiny people there is an opportunity to live lavishly on meager means. The Safrankek’s have been struggling to get by and really be able enjoy life. When they hear that their hundreds of thousands could be millions they see this as their chance to live the luxury life. The head out to Leisureland Estates, a tiny community, to see what the small world has to offer. After the visit they are convinced and decide to go through with the procedure and begin the irreversible process of becoming “small.” On the operation date they go to separate areas to get completely shaved and prepped. When Paul wakes up he is surprised that Audrey is not with him and she has decided she cannot go through the irreversible process. After his divorce he is left alone trying to find himself and where he fits in a whole new world, at a whole new size.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Awesome
When an artificial intelligence outthinks its creator and forms itself into dozens of destructive robots, Earth's mightiest heroes come together once again to put a stop to the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Apr 5, 2019
In a word...bland
There are many words that you can use to describe films by Tim Burton: Gothic, Bizarre, Dark, Interesting, SteamPunk, Unique, Visual.
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Missing Link (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
This really isn't a bad little film, it has its fun and implausible action, and you come away with a message of friendship for everyone to ponder on. It's obviously great Easter holiday fodder and it won't bore the parents, which is always half the battle with kids films.
Susan is the last of his kind and desperately wants to find the fabled yeti who he believes to be his distant cousins. He enlists Sir Lionel Frost to help him on his quest after reading about his escapades in finding long lost creatures.
It's a pretty star-studded cast with Zach Galifianakis and Hugh Jackman leading it up. There will be a lot of other voices you recognise, but for the most part they stay in the background.
Both of our leading men are really well cast and give their characters a much needed boost. They get some humour in various places, but I didn't feel like the script was fantastic overall.
Where Lionel and Susan were well cast, Adeline Fortnight really missed the spot for me. From the design of the character to that accent, whose origin was kind of non-descript, I couldn't help wondering why the role went to Zoe Saldana and not Salma Hayek.
Stephen Fry makes a wonderful bad guy. I've always loved his voicework this thankfully did not break that trend and he added some oomph to the proceedings.
The last cast member I want to mention is Emma Thompson as The Elder. I think she suffered the most with the script, "The people we don't want here are leaving! Force them to stay!" I'm sure that line was meant to be amusing, and it definitely could have been, but the way it wasn't backed up with anything to come across that way. She was woefully underused and her scenes were wholly inadequate for such a great talent.
I had to stop and weep for humanity a little, there are some comments on the internet where it appears that people don't get that this is stop-motion animation, with a few saying it all looked too simple. I cannot fault the work that was put into this, it's wonderfully done, even if I'm not a fan of the strangely pointed features. There's a brief glimpse in the trailer of a barroom brawl, look out for the whole scene in the film because it is probably the most impressive piece of work.
Despite my quibbles, this is genuinely a pleasant film to watch and I don't think many people will get to the end and grumble that they've wasted their time. I just worry that it's not quite good enough to be well remembered, it's in danger of being one of those films that makes me go "oh yeah, I remember that one, it's really good."
What you should do
If you're in need of an Easter activity then it's worth the trip to the cinema, and it's certainly worth catching when it's released for home viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
There's nothing in the film I'd particularly like to take home, but I wouldn't mind some of the patience and dedication that those animators must have to produce such wonderfully smooth motion.
Susan is the last of his kind and desperately wants to find the fabled yeti who he believes to be his distant cousins. He enlists Sir Lionel Frost to help him on his quest after reading about his escapades in finding long lost creatures.
It's a pretty star-studded cast with Zach Galifianakis and Hugh Jackman leading it up. There will be a lot of other voices you recognise, but for the most part they stay in the background.
Both of our leading men are really well cast and give their characters a much needed boost. They get some humour in various places, but I didn't feel like the script was fantastic overall.
Where Lionel and Susan were well cast, Adeline Fortnight really missed the spot for me. From the design of the character to that accent, whose origin was kind of non-descript, I couldn't help wondering why the role went to Zoe Saldana and not Salma Hayek.
Stephen Fry makes a wonderful bad guy. I've always loved his voicework this thankfully did not break that trend and he added some oomph to the proceedings.
The last cast member I want to mention is Emma Thompson as The Elder. I think she suffered the most with the script, "The people we don't want here are leaving! Force them to stay!" I'm sure that line was meant to be amusing, and it definitely could have been, but the way it wasn't backed up with anything to come across that way. She was woefully underused and her scenes were wholly inadequate for such a great talent.
I had to stop and weep for humanity a little, there are some comments on the internet where it appears that people don't get that this is stop-motion animation, with a few saying it all looked too simple. I cannot fault the work that was put into this, it's wonderfully done, even if I'm not a fan of the strangely pointed features. There's a brief glimpse in the trailer of a barroom brawl, look out for the whole scene in the film because it is probably the most impressive piece of work.
Despite my quibbles, this is genuinely a pleasant film to watch and I don't think many people will get to the end and grumble that they've wasted their time. I just worry that it's not quite good enough to be well remembered, it's in danger of being one of those films that makes me go "oh yeah, I remember that one, it's really good."
What you should do
If you're in need of an Easter activity then it's worth the trip to the cinema, and it's certainly worth catching when it's released for home viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
There's nothing in the film I'd particularly like to take home, but I wouldn't mind some of the patience and dedication that those animators must have to produce such wonderfully smooth motion.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
Spill yer beans
The Lighthouse is cinematic perfection that will leave anyone that lets it engulf thier mind and senses broken, disturbed, traumatised and violated. An experience like no other I can not stress enough that everyone must whitness this utter masterpiece. Primarily a character study about two lighthouse keepers descent into madness however the way the film depicts this reaches far deeper than I ever even imagined it would. (Possible spoilers ahead) Theres an unquestionable comparison to Greek mythology here and as the film plays out Willem Dafoe character draws several comparisons to King Trident, Zeus and Minos but ultimatly ends up becoming one of his own 'God of the lighthouse' keeping his prized possession locked away at the top of his tower. Robert Pattison also compares to the Titan Prometheus trying to steel this possesion/fire from this so called god. He can also be compared to Icarus trapped in a tower by a mean man with no means of escape and Odysseus constantly distracted/infatuated with the Sirens surrounding the lighthouse. I found these comparisions integrated into the story beautifully and theres constant fable/mythological imagry to reinforce these comparisons too which is hauntingly striking and terrifyingly prominent. Atmosphere is pin sharp here and as these two men begin to break you feel everything that starts to grate on them bombarding your senses as a viewr too. Everything is communicated flawlessly to really draw the viewer in as if we too are stuck with these to men feeling evrything build up, irritate, torment and add to the degradation of the mind until it hits its breaking point. Floors creaking & bowing, metal bending and screeching, wind howling, waves crashing, rain beating down, shutters rattling and birds squawking its intense and realistic sound design thats for sure. Mix this with a constant sence of dread from the narrow corridors, looming shadows, low lighting, claustrophobic living quaters, fog, harsh weather, mud, anoying seagulls, restricted views, countless foul smells, hard back breaking work, sexual frustrations, loneliness and alcohol its enough to make anyone go insane and as the film plays out cabin fever really intensifies (especially for us with the film being shot in black and white and with a smaller aspect ratio). This is some of the best acting ive seen for sure both Dafoe and Pattison portray these characters so well that you would be convinced you were watching historic archive footage of two people cooped up. Both are devious liars, have vicious tempers and nasty streaks as well as mysterious pasts and both are also constantly in a fight for dominance of the lighthouse and the secrets it holds. In this day and age The lighthouse is such a true gem to behold and is so unique and engrossing you would swear it transported you back in time while watching it. I also did not expect this film to take the turn it does half way through either almost becoming a distressing horror movie and as intense as a tesuo film and as my friend and me left the screening we found ourselves deeply disturbed/traumatised with our hearts pounding from what we had just been exposed to. Disgustingly intense, depressingly dripping in sadness, brutaly violent and deeply unsettling the lighthouse is one hell of a movie and may just be one of the best movies I have ever seen, it really is without a doubt a cinema experience I will certainly never forget. Comparable to the witch, the turin horse and apocalypse now the lighthouse deserves all the praise its been getting and more. Stunning.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Foxcatcher (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
‘Foxcatcher’ stars Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, Steve Carell, Sienna Miller, and Vanessa Redgrave with an appearance by Anthony Michael Hall and tells an account of Olympic Gold Medal Wrestling Champions, brothers Mark and Dave Schultz and their dealings with their millionaire coach, paranoid-schizophrenic John du Pont who eventually murdered Dave Schultz in 1996.
The film has already been received extremely well by critics and has been praised for the performances of Ruffalo, Tatum, and Carell as the three underwent complete character transformations. The film premiered in May at the Cannes Film Festival and director Bennett Miller took home the award for best director. As someone who has seen the film I can tell you that at first I didn’t recognize any of the three lead actors when their characters first appeared on screen in the movie. I would bet money on this film being nominated for Oscars, Emmys, and any other movie awards that I cannot imagine right now based on their performances alone. Channing Tatum has even been quoted as say that this was the hardest acting challenge he has had to date in his career.
In the course of the film, we see a unique look inside the mind of an Olympic athlete via Canning Tatum’s performance as Mark Schultz and how they start out as ‘pure’ and patriotic and how those athletes can be corrupted with the promise of big money for sponsorship or with the purpose of restoring and repeating the ‘glory and standing’ they experienced previously and how it reaches into their lives and the lives of the athlete’s families. Example, in the film when at coach John du Pont’s (Carell) insistence, Mark tries to convince his brother Dave (Ruffalo) to join him in putting together team ‘Foxcatcher’ to train wrestlers for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. At first, Dave declines for the reason of not wanting to uproot his family from their home. Later on though, when its of du Pont’s opinion that Mark’s efforts are unsatisfactory du Pont takes matters into his own hands and convinces Dave himself of signing on thereby alienating Mark from and then from his brother. Eventually, the brothers reconcile but this appears to enrage du Pont who’se already starting to display the symptoms associated with paranoid-schizophrenia. Which some say is the true culprit behind du Pont’s mixer of Dave Schultz.
I would personally give this film 4 out of 5 stars. Bennett Miller couldn’t have done a better job directing this film and once again, the performances by Tatum, Ruffalo, and Carell were amazing and I have no doubt that they will become major millstones in their careers. However, there is the obvious downside of knowing the outcome in this particular instance. Although I did indeed enjoy the film it was also for all intents and purposes, the film was basically a two hour march to death for the character of Dave Schultz which was a major bummer. But hey, that’s not the fault of anyone involved in the film. That’s just what happens when you watch a true crime story. That’s my only gripe in regards to the film though. I say go see it. It is a two hour film though so be sure you grab a meal and a few beverages before you hit the theater.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ , thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies!
The film has already been received extremely well by critics and has been praised for the performances of Ruffalo, Tatum, and Carell as the three underwent complete character transformations. The film premiered in May at the Cannes Film Festival and director Bennett Miller took home the award for best director. As someone who has seen the film I can tell you that at first I didn’t recognize any of the three lead actors when their characters first appeared on screen in the movie. I would bet money on this film being nominated for Oscars, Emmys, and any other movie awards that I cannot imagine right now based on their performances alone. Channing Tatum has even been quoted as say that this was the hardest acting challenge he has had to date in his career.
In the course of the film, we see a unique look inside the mind of an Olympic athlete via Canning Tatum’s performance as Mark Schultz and how they start out as ‘pure’ and patriotic and how those athletes can be corrupted with the promise of big money for sponsorship or with the purpose of restoring and repeating the ‘glory and standing’ they experienced previously and how it reaches into their lives and the lives of the athlete’s families. Example, in the film when at coach John du Pont’s (Carell) insistence, Mark tries to convince his brother Dave (Ruffalo) to join him in putting together team ‘Foxcatcher’ to train wrestlers for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. At first, Dave declines for the reason of not wanting to uproot his family from their home. Later on though, when its of du Pont’s opinion that Mark’s efforts are unsatisfactory du Pont takes matters into his own hands and convinces Dave himself of signing on thereby alienating Mark from and then from his brother. Eventually, the brothers reconcile but this appears to enrage du Pont who’se already starting to display the symptoms associated with paranoid-schizophrenia. Which some say is the true culprit behind du Pont’s mixer of Dave Schultz.
I would personally give this film 4 out of 5 stars. Bennett Miller couldn’t have done a better job directing this film and once again, the performances by Tatum, Ruffalo, and Carell were amazing and I have no doubt that they will become major millstones in their careers. However, there is the obvious downside of knowing the outcome in this particular instance. Although I did indeed enjoy the film it was also for all intents and purposes, the film was basically a two hour march to death for the character of Dave Schultz which was a major bummer. But hey, that’s not the fault of anyone involved in the film. That’s just what happens when you watch a true crime story. That’s my only gripe in regards to the film though. I say go see it. It is a two hour film though so be sure you grab a meal and a few beverages before you hit the theater.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ , thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies!