Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Ringu 2 (Ring 2) (2005) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Characters – Rachel has moved her child to a smaller town to start a new life away from the pain of the previous one. she gets a new job, only for the first day on the job, Samara takes her next victim. Wanting to stop the spread of the curse in this new town, Rachel destroys the video tape, only to see herself become the target once again of Samara. Rachel will need to continue the investigation into who Samara was and why she is still haunting the world. Max is one of the co-workers at the newspaper, he isn’t trying to hit on Rachel, but does become the only person that Rachel can turn too. Aidan is the son that has started to take after his father with his love of photography, he does become the target of Samara, we see two different sides to David in this film. Dr Temple is trying to figure out what has been happening to Aidan, first seeing that it could be child abuse, she needs to make sure the child is safe before anything else.
Performances – Naomi Watts is still strong in the leading role, we need her to show extra motherly emotions in the film this time around. Simon Baker doesn’t get a chance to get going in this film, while David Dorfman does make a big improvement because of the extra additions to his character. The supporting cast are not the strongest either with most getting left to limited screen time.
Story – The story here continues to see Rachel haunted by Samara needing to continue to unlock the truth about Samara to save her own son from her curse. Now this is a confusing as for a story because everything felt pretty wrapped up at the end of the film, this did end up just putting a forced sequel out there which tries to build more on the Samara legacy. Where this falls short in the story as by giving us weak supporting characters, having the events literally start the day Rachel arrives in the new town and going against certain things that happen in the first film.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film does give us basic moments of scares, though dream sequences a hoping the same jumps can worked in the first film. the mystery continues to look at the mystery about Samara and why she has continued to haunt people.
Settings – The film was moved to a smaller location, while returning to certain other locations with them being an extra clue involved in the film.
Special Effects – The effects in the film have dated already, you can see certain green screens being used, which were meant for uneasy scenes.
Scene of the Movie – The bath surprise.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The dated effects.
Final Thoughts – This is a weaker sequel that tries to build up on the original legacy, only to dive further into something we didn’t need to get more about what is happening.
Overall: Simple and weak sequel.
Performances – Naomi Watts is still strong in the leading role, we need her to show extra motherly emotions in the film this time around. Simon Baker doesn’t get a chance to get going in this film, while David Dorfman does make a big improvement because of the extra additions to his character. The supporting cast are not the strongest either with most getting left to limited screen time.
Story – The story here continues to see Rachel haunted by Samara needing to continue to unlock the truth about Samara to save her own son from her curse. Now this is a confusing as for a story because everything felt pretty wrapped up at the end of the film, this did end up just putting a forced sequel out there which tries to build more on the Samara legacy. Where this falls short in the story as by giving us weak supporting characters, having the events literally start the day Rachel arrives in the new town and going against certain things that happen in the first film.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film does give us basic moments of scares, though dream sequences a hoping the same jumps can worked in the first film. the mystery continues to look at the mystery about Samara and why she has continued to haunt people.
Settings – The film was moved to a smaller location, while returning to certain other locations with them being an extra clue involved in the film.
Special Effects – The effects in the film have dated already, you can see certain green screens being used, which were meant for uneasy scenes.
Scene of the Movie – The bath surprise.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The dated effects.
Final Thoughts – This is a weaker sequel that tries to build up on the original legacy, only to dive further into something we didn’t need to get more about what is happening.
Overall: Simple and weak sequel.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Long Utopia in Books
Nov 20, 2019
The Long Earth series of books presented an intriguing idea, that of being able to 'step' into parallel Earths, each an untouched wilderness and each one slightly different until they became very different planets. How would this affect people on a personal level and how would it affect the social and political stability of the original 'Datum Earth'?
The second book, The Long War explored the political theme further with the superpowers attempting to control the equivalent populations on the other Earths - and mostly meeting resistance to any governance at all. It also introduced the concept of the Next, a super intelligent sub-species of humanity.
The third book, The Long Mars had further incredible iterations of Earth on display and also did the same thing for Mars on a quest to discover a material to use to make a space elevator. The Next also started to organise and to separate themselves from the rest of humanity.
Each of these took the original concept and gave us more interesting worlds and lifeforms. Although the law of diminishing returns was starting to bite - Earth fatigue if you like - the main interest was in seeing what new ideas the authors could wrestle for each new Earth or Mars.
That is where this book fails. It is almost exclusively interested in only one copy of Earth, which comes under direct threat. All the usual suspects - Joshua, Sally, Lobsang and the Next must join forces to prevent a catastrophe threatening the whole Long Earth. There is also a sub-plot involving Joshua's antecedents which although interesting in itself is essentially a Long Earth short story of no relevance to the rest of the plot.
Whereas the previous books had a sense of wonder at each world, this loses that completely. It is in fact a completely standard science fiction story and probably would have been better told as a stand alone story rather than being shoe-horned into the Long Earth concept, which doesn't actually add anything interesting to it. It reads very much like Baxter wanted to write a story about a Dyson motor and as he was contracted to write a Long Earth novel, that's what was used. Unfortunately even this story is not well told with stilted and flaccid dialogue, zero character development and no dramatic tension at all. It was a real struggle to read in places, there is no zip or flow to the story or writing.
Various bits of the plot don't make a great deal of sense and the ending is very lame indeed with the chain of Long Earth worlds being essentially fixed by just thinking about it. The Next decide that Stan Berg, a newly discovered one of their kind, is the only one to 'fix' this despite basically no contact. They are supposed to be super intelligent and think many moves ahead but this just struck me as absurd.
Overall, I would only suggest that Long Earth completists read this. Those who enjoy the Long Earth for its diversity and novel concepts would be better off leaving this one on the shelf.
The second book, The Long War explored the political theme further with the superpowers attempting to control the equivalent populations on the other Earths - and mostly meeting resistance to any governance at all. It also introduced the concept of the Next, a super intelligent sub-species of humanity.
The third book, The Long Mars had further incredible iterations of Earth on display and also did the same thing for Mars on a quest to discover a material to use to make a space elevator. The Next also started to organise and to separate themselves from the rest of humanity.
Each of these took the original concept and gave us more interesting worlds and lifeforms. Although the law of diminishing returns was starting to bite - Earth fatigue if you like - the main interest was in seeing what new ideas the authors could wrestle for each new Earth or Mars.
That is where this book fails. It is almost exclusively interested in only one copy of Earth, which comes under direct threat. All the usual suspects - Joshua, Sally, Lobsang and the Next must join forces to prevent a catastrophe threatening the whole Long Earth. There is also a sub-plot involving Joshua's antecedents which although interesting in itself is essentially a Long Earth short story of no relevance to the rest of the plot.
Whereas the previous books had a sense of wonder at each world, this loses that completely. It is in fact a completely standard science fiction story and probably would have been better told as a stand alone story rather than being shoe-horned into the Long Earth concept, which doesn't actually add anything interesting to it. It reads very much like Baxter wanted to write a story about a Dyson motor and as he was contracted to write a Long Earth novel, that's what was used. Unfortunately even this story is not well told with stilted and flaccid dialogue, zero character development and no dramatic tension at all. It was a real struggle to read in places, there is no zip or flow to the story or writing.
Various bits of the plot don't make a great deal of sense and the ending is very lame indeed with the chain of Long Earth worlds being essentially fixed by just thinking about it. The Next decide that Stan Berg, a newly discovered one of their kind, is the only one to 'fix' this despite basically no contact. They are supposed to be super intelligent and think many moves ahead but this just struck me as absurd.
Overall, I would only suggest that Long Earth completists read this. Those who enjoy the Long Earth for its diversity and novel concepts would be better off leaving this one on the shelf.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Apollo 11 (2019) in Movies
Apr 7, 2020
I was sad to miss this one at the cinema, I imagine having it up on the big screen would have been very impressive, but only one of the mainstream cinemas had it on.
Space documentaries are always interesting, to think that all of that technology was really in its infancy and we were making such big strides for humanity is mindblowing... and that's why this felt like a letdown.
It's wonderful that we're getting this unseen footage but they've turned it into a film, it's not really a documentary at all. In a documentary I expect to learn things I didn't know before, but here while I was seeing things I'd never seen it's actually not showing you a new angle on the story. It's great to see everything evolving as it did on the day and through the journey but that isn't new. With such a rich story of science and discovery behind space exploration I am at a loss as to why they would forego having a narrator.
Having a narrator adds an extra layer of information that really does add something and makes the footage accessible to new viewers. I've seen documentaries on things like this before and so some of what I was seeing on screen was recognisable, but there were still some shots where I didn't know what I was looking at. Some prompting would have been useful, it was like walking through a museum where they've taken down the labels on the exhibits.
The footage is generally well edited throughout, and as I said before, the feel is that of a film as opposed to a documentary. They're compiled picture, audio and video images together to follow the crew on and above the Earth and the fact they can line it up so well is impressive. There's a montage as the crew return to Earth and this was particularly good when paired with "Mother Country" by John Stewart.
Putting the footage together can't have been an easy task, but some of it suffered for the sake of a shot. At one point we get a slightly out of place split screen "Go" sequence which showed all the departments calling out. I liked it as an idea but the audio isn't the best quality as it carries through, and after the initial effect it's difficult to understand what's going on and that detracts from some of the impact.
I appreciate the fact they dug into the archives for everything, the studio even used their 1969 logo, and crafting music that would have been possible then was impressive... even if a lot of it wasn't as inspiring as the moments it accompanied.
While Apollo 11 itself is a mindblowing event the way this "documentary" has been produced is not. Well crafted, yes, but its lack of further detail and background had a heavy negative impact for me. If I was rating just for the event then it would absolutely be a 5 star review, as a newly produced bit of work it doesn't bring anything new to the table even with it all being new footage.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/04/apollo-11-movie-review.html
Space documentaries are always interesting, to think that all of that technology was really in its infancy and we were making such big strides for humanity is mindblowing... and that's why this felt like a letdown.
It's wonderful that we're getting this unseen footage but they've turned it into a film, it's not really a documentary at all. In a documentary I expect to learn things I didn't know before, but here while I was seeing things I'd never seen it's actually not showing you a new angle on the story. It's great to see everything evolving as it did on the day and through the journey but that isn't new. With such a rich story of science and discovery behind space exploration I am at a loss as to why they would forego having a narrator.
Having a narrator adds an extra layer of information that really does add something and makes the footage accessible to new viewers. I've seen documentaries on things like this before and so some of what I was seeing on screen was recognisable, but there were still some shots where I didn't know what I was looking at. Some prompting would have been useful, it was like walking through a museum where they've taken down the labels on the exhibits.
The footage is generally well edited throughout, and as I said before, the feel is that of a film as opposed to a documentary. They're compiled picture, audio and video images together to follow the crew on and above the Earth and the fact they can line it up so well is impressive. There's a montage as the crew return to Earth and this was particularly good when paired with "Mother Country" by John Stewart.
Putting the footage together can't have been an easy task, but some of it suffered for the sake of a shot. At one point we get a slightly out of place split screen "Go" sequence which showed all the departments calling out. I liked it as an idea but the audio isn't the best quality as it carries through, and after the initial effect it's difficult to understand what's going on and that detracts from some of the impact.
I appreciate the fact they dug into the archives for everything, the studio even used their 1969 logo, and crafting music that would have been possible then was impressive... even if a lot of it wasn't as inspiring as the moments it accompanied.
While Apollo 11 itself is a mindblowing event the way this "documentary" has been produced is not. Well crafted, yes, but its lack of further detail and background had a heavy negative impact for me. If I was rating just for the event then it would absolutely be a 5 star review, as a newly produced bit of work it doesn't bring anything new to the table even with it all being new footage.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/04/apollo-11-movie-review.html
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) in Movies
Feb 14, 2020 (Updated Feb 15, 2020)
"ITS NO USE"
Sonic The Hedgehog openes up with a bunch of gold rings surrounding the studio logo while money sounds subtlety ding away in the background and from that moment alone it became obvious what this movie was going to be. One big fat soulless cash grab with only one goal in mind, entice your kids in and then quickly take your money. First of all this is a kids movie comparable to the likes of Alvin and the Chipmunks and just like that movie its not a good kids movie either. Now I like kids movies but Sonic decides to lure kids in with mundane things we have seen a million times in similar films like for instance the floss dance, fart jokes or mocking people by talking over them instead of using its own ideas or delivering fresh interesting content. Theres some very odd constant digs at Nintendo's Mario too which felt really unnecessary. Comedy wise none of its miserable attempts at humour are funny in the slightest either and before long its constant bombardment of strange jokes start to take their tole on your patience. Every single character here is sadly really unlikable too see we have the human characters who seem to have no individual personalities of thier own, lack emotions of any kind and also dont react to dangerous situations with any real sense of fear or shock. Jim Carrey as Doctor Robotnik combines Ace Ventura with The Riddler to make a character that just feels to loud & out of place compared to the robotic performances that everyone else gives. Then theres Sonic himself who is obsessive, anoying, childish, selfish, doesnt shut up and has an extremely short attention span too. So with no one to really sympathise/care about or root for the film better have some exciting action or a good story right? sadly not, theres just no thrills, no excitement, no energy and no heart here at all and definitely no love or passion for the source material. As a film its just plain dull (people were actually asleep and snoring in the seats next to me after just 30 minutes) as the film just runs out of ideas near the start and then resorts to repeating its best ines over and over again at a quick pace until it hits a wall. Did you like the Quicksilver sence from Xmen? dont worry Sonic copies it, how about the Transformers highway chase? dont worry Sonic copies it, what about The Fast and the Furious message about family? dont worry that in here too and thats another issue here, instead of making an original film for Sonic fans they have taken all the bits from films that have simply sold well squashed them into a ball and thrown them at a wall hoping they will stick. So heres the bottom line: Sonic is just another forgettable money maker nothing less nothing more more and just like the Garfield movie, Hop or The Smurfs will anyone be talking about it in a few months?? Naaaaaah
Ian Anderson recommended Alabama Blues/Passionate Blues by JB Lenoir in Music (curated)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Supernova (2020) in Movies
Oct 12, 2020
When I first saw the trailer for Supernova, I could tell that we were in for a fairly intense depiction of dementia and its effect on loved ones, delivered by a couple of veteran actors at the top of their game. Consequently, it was one of the movies I was most looking forward to as part of this years London Film Festival, and while it wasn’t quite as full-on or emotional for me as I was expecting, that’s certainly not the fault of Colin Firth or Stanley Tucci, who are both outstanding.
“We’re not going back, you know,” Sam (Firth) says to husband Tusker (Tucci) as they head off in their campervan for a road trip. He’s referring to any items they might have needed for the trip which are left behind, but those words will prove to hold a much deeper meaning as their journey progresses. Tusker, a best-selling author, has deliberately left his medication at home, having decided that it is having no effect in his battle with dementia. When Sam leaves Tusker in the van to head into a supermarket for supplies, he returns to find Tusker missing - a frantic drive down nearby country lanes finds him standing alone, lost and confused. His mind is clearly beginning to fail him.
As they put the incident behind them and continue their journey, we get a real sense of the love and commitment they both share. As they travel through the beautiful scenery of the Lake District, they bicker and joke with each other, like a gay version of Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon series, The Trip. “It isn’t even satisfying half the time,” Tusker admits after teasing Sam. When asked why he bothers anymore, he just smiles and replies “Because of the other half.”
Tusker continues to work on a new novel, but is finding it increasingly difficult to write anymore and has instead become preoccupied with gazing at the night sky, fascinated with astronomy. Sam, a semi-retired concert pianist, has taken a break to join Tusker on one last road-trip, revisiting locations from their lives together. They stop off at the home of Sam’s sister and her family, where a surprise birthday party brings together old friends and distant family. A chance to reminisce and take stock of what the future holds as Tusker continues to deteriorate. But a discovery during the party leads to some more serious discussions between Sam and Tusker, forcing them to acknowledge and attempt to come to terms with what lies ahead for them both.
Supernova didn’t head in the direction I expected it to, or deliver it in the way I envisioned from the trailer. For the most part, it’s just simple conversations between two lovers, sometimes playful, sometimes deadly serious. But it is delivered by two incredible actors, on peak-form and with such wonderful chemistry. And while it didn’t quite leave me feeling as emotional as it did for many others who watched it as part of the festival, it certainly managed to make a lasting impact.
“We’re not going back, you know,” Sam (Firth) says to husband Tusker (Tucci) as they head off in their campervan for a road trip. He’s referring to any items they might have needed for the trip which are left behind, but those words will prove to hold a much deeper meaning as their journey progresses. Tusker, a best-selling author, has deliberately left his medication at home, having decided that it is having no effect in his battle with dementia. When Sam leaves Tusker in the van to head into a supermarket for supplies, he returns to find Tusker missing - a frantic drive down nearby country lanes finds him standing alone, lost and confused. His mind is clearly beginning to fail him.
As they put the incident behind them and continue their journey, we get a real sense of the love and commitment they both share. As they travel through the beautiful scenery of the Lake District, they bicker and joke with each other, like a gay version of Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon series, The Trip. “It isn’t even satisfying half the time,” Tusker admits after teasing Sam. When asked why he bothers anymore, he just smiles and replies “Because of the other half.”
Tusker continues to work on a new novel, but is finding it increasingly difficult to write anymore and has instead become preoccupied with gazing at the night sky, fascinated with astronomy. Sam, a semi-retired concert pianist, has taken a break to join Tusker on one last road-trip, revisiting locations from their lives together. They stop off at the home of Sam’s sister and her family, where a surprise birthday party brings together old friends and distant family. A chance to reminisce and take stock of what the future holds as Tusker continues to deteriorate. But a discovery during the party leads to some more serious discussions between Sam and Tusker, forcing them to acknowledge and attempt to come to terms with what lies ahead for them both.
Supernova didn’t head in the direction I expected it to, or deliver it in the way I envisioned from the trailer. For the most part, it’s just simple conversations between two lovers, sometimes playful, sometimes deadly serious. But it is delivered by two incredible actors, on peak-form and with such wonderful chemistry. And while it didn’t quite leave me feeling as emotional as it did for many others who watched it as part of the festival, it certainly managed to make a lasting impact.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
[Nostalgia enters the room looking cheery. A cat lurks in the background. Nostalgia starts tapdancing. Suddenly a red dot appears on Nostalgia's back and the cat savagely attacks it, leaving it bloody and beaten on the ground.]
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Universal Pictures is wrapping up its How To Train Your Dragon Trilogy with the release of the film: How To Train Your Dragon: Hidden World, set to release on Friday, February 22, 2019.
The film brings back the same core cast of characters as the previous two movies, with Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), Astrid, (America Ferrera), Valka (Cate Blanchet), Eret (Kit Harrington), Gobber (Craig Ferguson), Snotlout (Jonah Hill), Ruffnutt (Kristen Wiig), Tuffnut (TJ Miller), Fishlegs (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), and flashback appearances of Stoic (Gerard Butler).
The story opens on what is supposed to be a “stealthy raid” but isn’t, quite.
We learn that Hiccup and his band of friends (both Dragon and human) are on a continuous mission to rescue captured Dragons from the poachers determined to capture and exploit them.
Hiccup and his friends then bring the rescued dragons back to Berk which is now a “Dragon-Viking utopia”. This arrangement, however idyllic, does not appear to be sustainable in the long-term. It is crowded and messy and Berk is just simply running out of room to house any more Dragons! Astrid and Gobber are concerned that housing all the Dragons on Berk makes the settlement a target for the Dragon hunters, endangering the entire community.
Hiccup is still exploring and reading his father’s old records, and remains convinced that there is “more” out there. He enlists Astrid’s help in finding the hidden world where he believes that all of Berk could move to, with their Dragons to leave in peace and secrecy.
After an attack on Berk, the rest of the community is convinced that Hiccup is right (even as he is not fully convinced himself of his ability to lead them successfully) and agrees to follow him in his search for the Hidden World sanctuary.
The story follows them on their quest and the dangers and successes of the journey to find a new, more suitable home.
The music, animation, and scenery in this movie is great. The details are phenomenal, from the characters’ hair, to the movements of the Dragons, to the Hidden World cave details, really show the attention that was paid in making this movie stand out!
The story line itself, as a continuation of the previous two movies, flows well, and follows an appropriate arc, both as far as relationships as well as time.
The addition of a new Dragon, and the relationship that evolves between the Light Fury and Toothless brings a new level of evolution to the existing relationship between Toothless and Hiccup, and plays on the adage of “if you love something, set it free”.
I laughed throughout the movie, at the dragons’ antics and expressions and interactions with their humans and each other. I held my breath in anticipation at some aspects, and heard myself say ‘oh no!” under my breath at one point as well. Dragons 3 drew me in from the start, and didn’t let go till the very end of the credit rolled. (We stayed until the lights came back up, and even the credits had me smiling with their small surprises!)
I found myself both wishing that this installment wouldn’t be “the end” as well as acknowledging that this story provided a fitting end to the series of films.
If there MUST be an end, this film wraps up the story nicely and provides closure, while yet leaving enough room to imagine what might come next.
I would give this movie 5 out of 5 stars, and while we did not see it in IMAX or 3D, if you have those options available, I would recommend that as well!
The film brings back the same core cast of characters as the previous two movies, with Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), Astrid, (America Ferrera), Valka (Cate Blanchet), Eret (Kit Harrington), Gobber (Craig Ferguson), Snotlout (Jonah Hill), Ruffnutt (Kristen Wiig), Tuffnut (TJ Miller), Fishlegs (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), and flashback appearances of Stoic (Gerard Butler).
The story opens on what is supposed to be a “stealthy raid” but isn’t, quite.
We learn that Hiccup and his band of friends (both Dragon and human) are on a continuous mission to rescue captured Dragons from the poachers determined to capture and exploit them.
Hiccup and his friends then bring the rescued dragons back to Berk which is now a “Dragon-Viking utopia”. This arrangement, however idyllic, does not appear to be sustainable in the long-term. It is crowded and messy and Berk is just simply running out of room to house any more Dragons! Astrid and Gobber are concerned that housing all the Dragons on Berk makes the settlement a target for the Dragon hunters, endangering the entire community.
Hiccup is still exploring and reading his father’s old records, and remains convinced that there is “more” out there. He enlists Astrid’s help in finding the hidden world where he believes that all of Berk could move to, with their Dragons to leave in peace and secrecy.
After an attack on Berk, the rest of the community is convinced that Hiccup is right (even as he is not fully convinced himself of his ability to lead them successfully) and agrees to follow him in his search for the Hidden World sanctuary.
The story follows them on their quest and the dangers and successes of the journey to find a new, more suitable home.
The music, animation, and scenery in this movie is great. The details are phenomenal, from the characters’ hair, to the movements of the Dragons, to the Hidden World cave details, really show the attention that was paid in making this movie stand out!
The story line itself, as a continuation of the previous two movies, flows well, and follows an appropriate arc, both as far as relationships as well as time.
The addition of a new Dragon, and the relationship that evolves between the Light Fury and Toothless brings a new level of evolution to the existing relationship between Toothless and Hiccup, and plays on the adage of “if you love something, set it free”.
I laughed throughout the movie, at the dragons’ antics and expressions and interactions with their humans and each other. I held my breath in anticipation at some aspects, and heard myself say ‘oh no!” under my breath at one point as well. Dragons 3 drew me in from the start, and didn’t let go till the very end of the credit rolled. (We stayed until the lights came back up, and even the credits had me smiling with their small surprises!)
I found myself both wishing that this installment wouldn’t be “the end” as well as acknowledging that this story provided a fitting end to the series of films.
If there MUST be an end, this film wraps up the story nicely and provides closure, while yet leaving enough room to imagine what might come next.
I would give this movie 5 out of 5 stars, and while we did not see it in IMAX or 3D, if you have those options available, I would recommend that as well!
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Tabula Rasa (Tabula Rasa, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I was extremely curious about Tabula Rasa when I found out what it meant (Latin: Scraped Tablet. AKA, a newborn basically.) I also thought it would be a really interesting read I mean, girl has a tragic past, and is basically a lab rat in a procedure to erase those memories. Oh, and what's even more intriguing? Most of the "rats" are delinquents. I suppose from a delinquent's view, one would want to erase memories. Better than sitting in juvie, right? :p
It's certainly a cause for curiosity. I mean, we're reading the story from a possible criminal! I know I shouldn't be excited, but can you blame me? I've never actually read a story from a delinquent! ^o^
Not to burst any exciting bubbles bubbling up, but truth is, Sarah, our main character, isn't. That was highly disappointing when I found out. Instead, I found out she was some idol of sorts in New York, famous for uncovering a scam. Um... not too exciting. Plus, she seems much too fearless. I could have sworn she wasn't afraid of death even throughout the entire book. If there's one question I want to ask Sarah, it's "Are you even afraid of anything?"
<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uGUfnIbJtyY/U5yh6n3z6iI/AAAAAAAADe4/BU4P9O2rlTg/s1600/giphy+(12).gif"; border="0">
During the earlier parts of the book though, I sort of wanted to just toss Tabula Rasa aside and mark it as DNF. It felt a little too creepy, and confusing. The creepy part probably worked to an advantage, seeing how the surgery was quite detailed. *shudders*
<blockquote>Improvising seems familiar. Like it's my style.</blockquote>
Now the confusing part, that was just randomly thrown in. And I mean the quote. Not me randomly throwing the word confusing around and about. Sarah's going to a tool closet and putting things in her pocket. I'm not sure that's improvising. She's not making anything from what I read, aside from noticing a door. Does noticing a door count as improvising?
The romance between Thomas and Sarah. Really odd. Just... really odd. I felt like Thomas was trying a bit too hard on being funny at the beginning. Later he tends to be more "relaxed" and the humor felt more natural. But for a hacker with a father formerly in the Russian Intelligence Agency do they call it RIA? Thomas just seems too carefree. It was as though hacking just isn't... him. I suppose a new career is on the horizons for said character.
I did learn some new things though. I'm done with truth serums. What's with authors after Veronica Roth throwing serums around? They're popping up in so many places. O_o Oh, and apparently it actually snows in Hawaii. In the mountains. Wait, there are mountains in Hawaii? MIND = BLOWN.
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_L4F_cUFsRc/U5yiXj5ftDI/AAAAAAAADfA/n9f9CgNd_H4/s1600/giphy+(13).gif"; border="0" height="179" width="320">
The Bourne Identity? I haven't read it myself, even though that sounds really familiar. Divergent? I'm not too sure. Even the folks of Dauntless are afraid of something. I guess the former's more of a bull's eye with Tabula Rasa than the latter. Tabula Rasa reminded me more of Nikita, Au Revoir Crazy European Chick, and apparently something else I can't remember with all the action and secret plots/schemes (it has something to do with operations).
------------------------
Advanced review copy provided by EgmontUSA for review
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/arc-review-tabula-rasa-by-kristen-lippert-martin.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
It's certainly a cause for curiosity. I mean, we're reading the story from a possible criminal! I know I shouldn't be excited, but can you blame me? I've never actually read a story from a delinquent! ^o^
Not to burst any exciting bubbles bubbling up, but truth is, Sarah, our main character, isn't. That was highly disappointing when I found out. Instead, I found out she was some idol of sorts in New York, famous for uncovering a scam. Um... not too exciting. Plus, she seems much too fearless. I could have sworn she wasn't afraid of death even throughout the entire book. If there's one question I want to ask Sarah, it's "Are you even afraid of anything?"
<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uGUfnIbJtyY/U5yh6n3z6iI/AAAAAAAADe4/BU4P9O2rlTg/s1600/giphy+(12).gif"; border="0">
During the earlier parts of the book though, I sort of wanted to just toss Tabula Rasa aside and mark it as DNF. It felt a little too creepy, and confusing. The creepy part probably worked to an advantage, seeing how the surgery was quite detailed. *shudders*
<blockquote>Improvising seems familiar. Like it's my style.</blockquote>
Now the confusing part, that was just randomly thrown in. And I mean the quote. Not me randomly throwing the word confusing around and about. Sarah's going to a tool closet and putting things in her pocket. I'm not sure that's improvising. She's not making anything from what I read, aside from noticing a door. Does noticing a door count as improvising?
The romance between Thomas and Sarah. Really odd. Just... really odd. I felt like Thomas was trying a bit too hard on being funny at the beginning. Later he tends to be more "relaxed" and the humor felt more natural. But for a hacker with a father formerly in the Russian Intelligence Agency do they call it RIA? Thomas just seems too carefree. It was as though hacking just isn't... him. I suppose a new career is on the horizons for said character.
I did learn some new things though. I'm done with truth serums. What's with authors after Veronica Roth throwing serums around? They're popping up in so many places. O_o Oh, and apparently it actually snows in Hawaii. In the mountains. Wait, there are mountains in Hawaii? MIND = BLOWN.
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_L4F_cUFsRc/U5yiXj5ftDI/AAAAAAAADfA/n9f9CgNd_H4/s1600/giphy+(13).gif"; border="0" height="179" width="320">
The Bourne Identity? I haven't read it myself, even though that sounds really familiar. Divergent? I'm not too sure. Even the folks of Dauntless are afraid of something. I guess the former's more of a bull's eye with Tabula Rasa than the latter. Tabula Rasa reminded me more of Nikita, Au Revoir Crazy European Chick, and apparently something else I can't remember with all the action and secret plots/schemes (it has something to do with operations).
------------------------
Advanced review copy provided by EgmontUSA for review
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/arc-review-tabula-rasa-by-kristen-lippert-martin.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Neil Goddard (3 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Feb 27, 2020
No Actors Required
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have a theory about movies that are 100% CGI; when someone isn’t a great actor and they are required only to supply a voice and they still aren’t very good, it really stands out.
Now, imagine you’re watching a film. I don’t know, maybe a bit creature epic, larger than life with whole cities being destroyed. The creature’s look amazing and the carnage they are wreaking is fabulous; buildings, helicopters, cars, all flying around the screen with a swish of a mighty reptilian tale. Now imagine that the actors, real people, not CGI, are, at best, bland and in some instances just outright terrible.
Annoying isn’t it?
It would lead one to believe that the film makers didn’t really put any stock in the human interactions, rather just gave a huge wad of cash to an SFX company and said, “Fill your boots, the more the merrier, make everything f---ing enormous!”
Godzilla (2014) was the second time Hollywood has attempted to make a film featuring Japan’s kaiju supremo and it was the first successful attempt from Hollywood, given that the 1998 Roland Emmerich attempt was basically Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) but with added daddy issues (Roland Emmerich’s trademark).
Gareth Edwards 2014 first entry in the MonsterVerse was a huge success, financially and artistically. We saw a Godzilla that was of a scale we’d always wanted, towering over buildings, a reptilian God and we’re just the ants trying to not get squished.
Godzilla: King of Monsters attempts to up the ante by throwing a dozen or so monsters at the story. “Godzilla fought two MUTO’s did he, well… hold my beer!” Yeah, we’ll hold your beer while you get Millie Bobby Brown to stand there teary eyed for most of the film (a waste), Vera Farmiga to go from bereaved workaholic, to eco-terrorist to pointless self-sacrifice (unfathomable), and for Kyle Chandler to… well, Christ knows what Kyle Chandler was doing, apart from spitting terrible dialogue badly and then standing/sitting/walking looking angry but unconvincingly. Bradley Whitford provided some nice comic relief, he does droll sarcasm immensely well, Charles Dance is underused (and then forgotten about) and Zhang Ziyi tries to out-Kyle-Chandler Kyle Chandler in the bland, borderline useless stakes.
Worse than any failing on the human emotion side of the story are the huge liberties they take with global travel, like, one of side of the world to the other in a very short space of time. I mean Godzilla can do it because of some tunnels under the sea that he uses, possible the ones used in the science-denying sci-fi car crash abomination The Core (2003), but for the humans to just pop to Venezuela or the Antarctic is unforgivable.
This kind of leaps of reality always leads me to lose interest in the events in a film and start thinking around the script. In a film where everything everyone says is of dire emergency or import and then we see them in another part of the world some time later, what have they been talking about for all that time. Have they been napping? If so, it’s hasn’t eased any of the pointless angry posturing. Have they been chatting about boring everyday stuff? There is no hint of a relationship between any of these people who are spending potentially their last moments on earth together with alarming regularity. The world is possible about to get destroyed and you are in direct harm’s way! Shut up and nut up.
Now, imagine you’re watching a film. I don’t know, maybe a bit creature epic, larger than life with whole cities being destroyed. The creature’s look amazing and the carnage they are wreaking is fabulous; buildings, helicopters, cars, all flying around the screen with a swish of a mighty reptilian tale. Now imagine that the actors, real people, not CGI, are, at best, bland and in some instances just outright terrible.
Annoying isn’t it?
It would lead one to believe that the film makers didn’t really put any stock in the human interactions, rather just gave a huge wad of cash to an SFX company and said, “Fill your boots, the more the merrier, make everything f---ing enormous!”
Godzilla (2014) was the second time Hollywood has attempted to make a film featuring Japan’s kaiju supremo and it was the first successful attempt from Hollywood, given that the 1998 Roland Emmerich attempt was basically Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) but with added daddy issues (Roland Emmerich’s trademark).
Gareth Edwards 2014 first entry in the MonsterVerse was a huge success, financially and artistically. We saw a Godzilla that was of a scale we’d always wanted, towering over buildings, a reptilian God and we’re just the ants trying to not get squished.
Godzilla: King of Monsters attempts to up the ante by throwing a dozen or so monsters at the story. “Godzilla fought two MUTO’s did he, well… hold my beer!” Yeah, we’ll hold your beer while you get Millie Bobby Brown to stand there teary eyed for most of the film (a waste), Vera Farmiga to go from bereaved workaholic, to eco-terrorist to pointless self-sacrifice (unfathomable), and for Kyle Chandler to… well, Christ knows what Kyle Chandler was doing, apart from spitting terrible dialogue badly and then standing/sitting/walking looking angry but unconvincingly. Bradley Whitford provided some nice comic relief, he does droll sarcasm immensely well, Charles Dance is underused (and then forgotten about) and Zhang Ziyi tries to out-Kyle-Chandler Kyle Chandler in the bland, borderline useless stakes.
Worse than any failing on the human emotion side of the story are the huge liberties they take with global travel, like, one of side of the world to the other in a very short space of time. I mean Godzilla can do it because of some tunnels under the sea that he uses, possible the ones used in the science-denying sci-fi car crash abomination The Core (2003), but for the humans to just pop to Venezuela or the Antarctic is unforgivable.
This kind of leaps of reality always leads me to lose interest in the events in a film and start thinking around the script. In a film where everything everyone says is of dire emergency or import and then we see them in another part of the world some time later, what have they been talking about for all that time. Have they been napping? If so, it’s hasn’t eased any of the pointless angry posturing. Have they been chatting about boring everyday stuff? There is no hint of a relationship between any of these people who are spending potentially their last moments on earth together with alarming regularity. The world is possible about to get destroyed and you are in direct harm’s way! Shut up and nut up.