Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Outlaw King (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
After more than eight years of war with King Edward I of England (Stephen Dillane) the Scottish Nobles swear allegiance to the crown, ending the brutal. This includes Robert Bruce (Chris Pine) who is one of two men in line to be King of Scots. But by pledging his loyalty to they agree to be under the supervision of the Earl of Pembroke, Aymer de Valence (Sam Spruell). Robert’s father, Robert Bruce Senior (James Cosmo), had pushed for the peace with England but when he dies and the younger Robert is in charge a new fight for independence seems eminent. When the last remaining outlaw, William Wallace, is killed by the English Robert knows the time to fight is now. He decides to meet with his rival for the crown, John Comyn (Callan Mulvey), to have a united Scotland fighting for freedom. When Comyn denies Robert’s request and tells him he will use the information to be named King by Edward I, Robert kills him. This proves costly as it divides the Scottish Lords. Robert is determined and will take a small group loyal to him and fight one of the largest and most feared armies in the world.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, I’ll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didn’t make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, I’ll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didn’t make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated This Means War (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It’s been said that all’s fair in love and war and never was the case more evident than in the tale of FDR and Tuck, two best friends who also happen to be partners and top agents at the CIA. After a covert operation doesn’t go as planned the duo find themselves riding their desks in the Los Angeles agency office much to their chagrin.
FDR (Chris Pine) is very confident ladies’ man while Tuck (Tom Hardy) is a divorced father of a little boy looking for “the one”. The more reserved Tuck decides to take his chances with online dating while FDR is content to cruise the local video store searching for his latest conquest. Enter Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), an attractive, independent woman who appears to have everything except a love life.
When Lauren encounters her former fiancé engaged to another woman, she vents her frustration to her best friend Trish (Chelsea Handler) who decides to take matters into her own hands and, unbeknownst to Lauren, produces an online dating profile for Lauren which matches her with Tuck. The first meeting between the two goes very well and they decide to take things slowly and see where this promising start leads. Unfortunately as Trish is heading home she stops in the same video store were FDR is on the prowl and the two mix like oil and water. Undeterred, FDR decides to pursue Lauren.
Eventually Tuck and FDR realize that they’re seeing the same woman and, not wanting to put their friendship in jeopardy, agree that they will continue to see her and let Lauren decide whom she prefers. The fact that neither men in this love triangle acknowledges that they know each other leads to some interesting complications, and naturally jealousies arise between the two friends.
With the full resources of the CIA at their disposal, Tuck and FDR, who’ve both become captivated with Lauren, soon take advantage of their job not only to spy on each other’s dates with Lauren but also to do their best to undermine the other and gain valuable information to help them appear more desirable to Lauren. As if this wasn’t complicated enough, an international criminal named Heinrich (Til Schweiger) is searching for the two agents to seek revenge. Constantly battling one another as well as the impending threat of Heinrich, FDR and Tuck embark on a hysterical and action-packed adventure that is one of the most enjoyable romantic comedies in recent memory.
Sure the film does take a few leaps in logic, such as the CIA turning a blind eye to their use of so many high-level resources in the world of dating but anyone seeing this type of film obviously isn’t expecting realism.
Directed by McG the film mixes action and comedy with a touch of romance and creates an entertaining formula. The three leads work exceptionally well with one another and Hardy and Pine are clearly stars on the rise. Handler does some great supporting work in the film and gets more than her share of laughs. This is definitely one you will not want to miss.
FDR (Chris Pine) is very confident ladies’ man while Tuck (Tom Hardy) is a divorced father of a little boy looking for “the one”. The more reserved Tuck decides to take his chances with online dating while FDR is content to cruise the local video store searching for his latest conquest. Enter Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), an attractive, independent woman who appears to have everything except a love life.
When Lauren encounters her former fiancé engaged to another woman, she vents her frustration to her best friend Trish (Chelsea Handler) who decides to take matters into her own hands and, unbeknownst to Lauren, produces an online dating profile for Lauren which matches her with Tuck. The first meeting between the two goes very well and they decide to take things slowly and see where this promising start leads. Unfortunately as Trish is heading home she stops in the same video store were FDR is on the prowl and the two mix like oil and water. Undeterred, FDR decides to pursue Lauren.
Eventually Tuck and FDR realize that they’re seeing the same woman and, not wanting to put their friendship in jeopardy, agree that they will continue to see her and let Lauren decide whom she prefers. The fact that neither men in this love triangle acknowledges that they know each other leads to some interesting complications, and naturally jealousies arise between the two friends.
With the full resources of the CIA at their disposal, Tuck and FDR, who’ve both become captivated with Lauren, soon take advantage of their job not only to spy on each other’s dates with Lauren but also to do their best to undermine the other and gain valuable information to help them appear more desirable to Lauren. As if this wasn’t complicated enough, an international criminal named Heinrich (Til Schweiger) is searching for the two agents to seek revenge. Constantly battling one another as well as the impending threat of Heinrich, FDR and Tuck embark on a hysterical and action-packed adventure that is one of the most enjoyable romantic comedies in recent memory.
Sure the film does take a few leaps in logic, such as the CIA turning a blind eye to their use of so many high-level resources in the world of dating but anyone seeing this type of film obviously isn’t expecting realism.
Directed by McG the film mixes action and comedy with a touch of romance and creates an entertaining formula. The three leads work exceptionally well with one another and Hardy and Pine are clearly stars on the rise. Handler does some great supporting work in the film and gets more than her share of laughs. This is definitely one you will not want to miss.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Utterly preposterous
Thor is arguably one of Marvel’s strongest characters. Played by the superb Chris Hemsworth since 2011, the God of thunder is one of the MCUs most popular assets.
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Marvel's Spider-Man in Video Games
Jan 15, 2019 (Updated Jan 15, 2019)
The best web swinging has felt in any Spiderman game ever. (3 more)
Good presentation in all of the cutscenes.
Enjoyable orchestral backdrop to swing around Manhattan to.
The parts of Manhattan that are in the game look great.
A lot of Manhattan has been left out or vastly downsized. (2 more)
The other 4 boroughs have been ignored.
Although the presentation is great, the graphics are slightly sub par.
Thwip!
Marvel's Spider-man was one of the biggest games of last year. Developed by Insomniac and following an original story, not tied in to the recent MCU movie, this was the most exciting superhero game since the Arkham series for a lot of people. Thankfully, Insomniac did manage to deliver a brilliant game, but not a perfect one.
The game's opening fantastically sets up the tone and energy of what's to follow and it's probably one of the best video game opening's I have ever played in that respect. Once the rush and momentum of that first mission wears off, you are introduced to the open world that you will be exploring for the next 20 or so hours. Manhattan does look good here, possibly the best it ever has done in a game. Landmarks like the Empire State Building and Madison Square Garden are rendered extremely accurately to their real life counterparts.
The stuff that they chose to include in the game's version of Manhattan is great, but the issue is all of the parts that they left out. Battery Park is has halved in size, the One World Trade Centre has changed shape and everything above mid Harlem has vanished, making the district feel stumpy. Hopefully some of this stuff is amended for the sequel, along with the addition of at least a couple of the other boroughs.
Although the environment looks good graphically, as do Spidey's various suits that can be unlocked during the game, the human character models aren't the best and are fairly ugly when compared to character models in other 2018 games such as God of War, Red Dead 2 and Detroit: Become Human. Usually, in cutscenes etc, the game presents these character model well enough that it isn't too noticeable, but there were a good few times during gameplay that I would catch a glimpse of MJ's or Miles' weird faces and scratch my head wondering why they don't look better.
I have heard a few reviews moaning about the orchestral score that plays in the background as you swing around the city, but I personally really enjoyed it and it made me feel even more like a superhero than I already do when swinging through the middle of Times Square. I felt that all of the musical choices were well implemented and matched the story beats aptly to add impact in the right places.
Let's finish on a positive, the web swinging mechanic in this game is extremely satisfying and comes out on top of any other Spider-man game's web swinging system. Again, it's not flawless, there are moments that it will frustrate you and you will web to the opposite side of what you were aiming for. Also, for some reason the wall crawling mechanic is really slow and finicky and can often break the fast paced momentum of the web swinging/zipping/wall running combo that you have going. Most of the time though, it works fantastically and feels extremely fluid and immersive and it is probably one of the most satisfying game mechanics of 2018, along with Kratos' axe in GOW.
Overall, Marvel's Spider-man is great, but not perfect. There is definitely room for improvement, but this could be the start of a potentially incredible series of Marvel superhero games and hopefully the sequel, (that Insomniac is undoubtedly working on,) can improve on some of the flaws present in this game and deliver something incredible.
The game's opening fantastically sets up the tone and energy of what's to follow and it's probably one of the best video game opening's I have ever played in that respect. Once the rush and momentum of that first mission wears off, you are introduced to the open world that you will be exploring for the next 20 or so hours. Manhattan does look good here, possibly the best it ever has done in a game. Landmarks like the Empire State Building and Madison Square Garden are rendered extremely accurately to their real life counterparts.
The stuff that they chose to include in the game's version of Manhattan is great, but the issue is all of the parts that they left out. Battery Park is has halved in size, the One World Trade Centre has changed shape and everything above mid Harlem has vanished, making the district feel stumpy. Hopefully some of this stuff is amended for the sequel, along with the addition of at least a couple of the other boroughs.
Although the environment looks good graphically, as do Spidey's various suits that can be unlocked during the game, the human character models aren't the best and are fairly ugly when compared to character models in other 2018 games such as God of War, Red Dead 2 and Detroit: Become Human. Usually, in cutscenes etc, the game presents these character model well enough that it isn't too noticeable, but there were a good few times during gameplay that I would catch a glimpse of MJ's or Miles' weird faces and scratch my head wondering why they don't look better.
I have heard a few reviews moaning about the orchestral score that plays in the background as you swing around the city, but I personally really enjoyed it and it made me feel even more like a superhero than I already do when swinging through the middle of Times Square. I felt that all of the musical choices were well implemented and matched the story beats aptly to add impact in the right places.
Let's finish on a positive, the web swinging mechanic in this game is extremely satisfying and comes out on top of any other Spider-man game's web swinging system. Again, it's not flawless, there are moments that it will frustrate you and you will web to the opposite side of what you were aiming for. Also, for some reason the wall crawling mechanic is really slow and finicky and can often break the fast paced momentum of the web swinging/zipping/wall running combo that you have going. Most of the time though, it works fantastically and feels extremely fluid and immersive and it is probably one of the most satisfying game mechanics of 2018, along with Kratos' axe in GOW.
Overall, Marvel's Spider-man is great, but not perfect. There is definitely room for improvement, but this could be the start of a potentially incredible series of Marvel superhero games and hopefully the sequel, (that Insomniac is undoubtedly working on,) can improve on some of the flaws present in this game and deliver something incredible.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
In a tale as vast and epic as the Oceans that frames the story: “Aquaman” has arrived in a flurry of action and adventure.
The film tells the origin of Arthur Curry (Jason Momoa), who is half mortal and half Atlantean, thanks to his human father rescuing his mother, an Atlantean royal, and falling in love.
The love between his parents is forbidden under the customs of the people of Atlantis and in time his mother is forced to return to Atlantis, leaving Arthur to be raised by his human father.
When his power-hungry half-brother Orm (Patrick Wilson), plots to wage war on the surface world, Princess Mera (Amber Heard), attempts to convince Arthur to make his first trip to Atlantis to challenge Orm for the throne and become king. Naturally a lifetime of resentment toward the people who divided his parents has made Arthur unwilling to help, especially when the key to victory requires locating and retrieving an artfact that will bring peace to
his people and those of the surface world.
With an army of Atlantean soldiers pursuing him as well as the evil Black Manta set on revenge, Arthur faces an uphill battle as he races against time and his own conflicted emotions to save the day.
Director James Wan has done an amazing job of giving audiences a lavish and action-filled experience that never loses the characters as the main
focus of the story. He cleverly blends the lore of Aquaman with a modern
twist yet stays true to the character. Jason Momoa has an intriguing presence, giving the character more depth than expected. The supporting cast is solid and the film rarely loses pacing or fails to keep you fascinated throughout.
Warner has had some issues with recent adaptations of DC characters but, like Wonder Woman, “Aquaman” delivers on action and storytelling. The film also contains a strong message about ecology without being preachy. This is one of the more entertaining films of the year and should make fans of the character happy. I look forward to seeing what adventure comes next for Aquaman.
http://sknr.net/2018/12/18/aquaman/
The film tells the origin of Arthur Curry (Jason Momoa), who is half mortal and half Atlantean, thanks to his human father rescuing his mother, an Atlantean royal, and falling in love.
The love between his parents is forbidden under the customs of the people of Atlantis and in time his mother is forced to return to Atlantis, leaving Arthur to be raised by his human father.
When his power-hungry half-brother Orm (Patrick Wilson), plots to wage war on the surface world, Princess Mera (Amber Heard), attempts to convince Arthur to make his first trip to Atlantis to challenge Orm for the throne and become king. Naturally a lifetime of resentment toward the people who divided his parents has made Arthur unwilling to help, especially when the key to victory requires locating and retrieving an artfact that will bring peace to
his people and those of the surface world.
With an army of Atlantean soldiers pursuing him as well as the evil Black Manta set on revenge, Arthur faces an uphill battle as he races against time and his own conflicted emotions to save the day.
Director James Wan has done an amazing job of giving audiences a lavish and action-filled experience that never loses the characters as the main
focus of the story. He cleverly blends the lore of Aquaman with a modern
twist yet stays true to the character. Jason Momoa has an intriguing presence, giving the character more depth than expected. The supporting cast is solid and the film rarely loses pacing or fails to keep you fascinated throughout.
Warner has had some issues with recent adaptations of DC characters but, like Wonder Woman, “Aquaman” delivers on action and storytelling. The film also contains a strong message about ecology without being preachy. This is one of the more entertaining films of the year and should make fans of the character happy. I look forward to seeing what adventure comes next for Aquaman.
http://sknr.net/2018/12/18/aquaman/
Rugby: An Anthology: The Brave, the Bruised and the Brilliant
Book
Inspiring and irreverent by turns, Brian Levison's new anthology has drawn on rugby's wealth of...
Andrew Carnegie
Book
Celebrated historian David Nasaw, whom The New York Times Book Review has called "a meticulous...
Zombie Hunter: FPS Apocalypse
Games and Entertainment
App
The new real zombie war game with incredible 3D graphics. Your goal is to survive from the undead...
Christina Haynes (148 KP) rated Things a Bright Girl Can Do in Books
Feb 10, 2018
THINGS A BRIGHT GIRL CAN DO by SALLY NICHOLLS
In 1903 Emmeline Pankhurst founded a new organisation called 'The Woman's Social and Political Union’ because she like many other women believed that they should be equal to men and be allowed a vote!
Although women over thirty did get the vote in 1918 - after the bill was passed. It wasn't until 1928 that all women got the vote. But unfortunately, Emmeline Pankhurst died before she got to see this happen.
When WWI broke out men had to go and fight, leaving their jobs to the woman. This was the start of women getting more opportunities. Even though they weren't being paid the same, they were still happy to be doing something to help. (Though that's a different story)
But this whole having a job, and helping with the war was only for the meantime, because after the war men wanted their jobs back!
Things a Bright Girl Can Do is about three girls who live in this time. Three girls who want to do more with their lives. Three girls who want freedom and the chance to be different.
Evelyn, May, and Nell.
Evelyn is seventeen and has dreamt of going to a university like her brother, but is unable to do so because, for the simple fact, she's a girl!
But mind you, she is probably smarter than her brother. Or any boy for that matter. So what does she do? She joins the suffragettes! And by doing this she see’s exactly what it's like to be a suffragette and what they do first hand. Though it's not as nice as it seems. She takes part in a hunger strike while she's in prison; like many suffragettes before her. She gets ill afterward and though she did what she believed was right, she soon realized that it wasn't such a great idea.
But in some ways, it made her a better person in the future because she knew exactly what it was like and why they were fighting for their rights.
May is fifteen and has been a part of the suffragettes along with her mother for a while now. She campaigns and she fights for the rights of women in a peaceful way. By handing out flyers, by going to meetings and talks. Again like Evelyn, she knows what it's like to have money and to be in a better situation than some women who don't even have that.
Nell, who’s grown up not knowing money, she's always tried to work and help her mother with whatever she can. She later meets May and the two of them fall in love and dream of a better world. She joins the cause of ‘Women's Rights’ and fights for them. Because why should men get everything?
All three girls are very different and all want something out of their vote. They all become a part of the suffragettes in their own different ways.
Sally Nicholls gives you a great insight into the past, bringing it to life again. Questioning what life was like back then, for woman and the government. She does all this by turning three stories into a reality that we all now take for granted. Even now women don't use their votes.
My opinion is that no matter whether you like politics or even believe in them, you should always use your vote. That's what I think anyway. For the simple fact, women died for your right to vote. It's your life as well you should use your vote to make the world better. To have a say.
From the suffragettes to WWI and it's 'we can do it’ attitude, this book is amazing inside and out. From the facts and the stories within its pages to the history lesson of fighting for your rights - to what women did to help in the war, you need to try this book.
So would you be one of the suffragettes, or did you have one in your family? It would be interesting to know.
Just remember, we can all do it.
Love, Christina ?
Although women over thirty did get the vote in 1918 - after the bill was passed. It wasn't until 1928 that all women got the vote. But unfortunately, Emmeline Pankhurst died before she got to see this happen.
When WWI broke out men had to go and fight, leaving their jobs to the woman. This was the start of women getting more opportunities. Even though they weren't being paid the same, they were still happy to be doing something to help. (Though that's a different story)
But this whole having a job, and helping with the war was only for the meantime, because after the war men wanted their jobs back!
Things a Bright Girl Can Do is about three girls who live in this time. Three girls who want to do more with their lives. Three girls who want freedom and the chance to be different.
Evelyn, May, and Nell.
Evelyn is seventeen and has dreamt of going to a university like her brother, but is unable to do so because, for the simple fact, she's a girl!
But mind you, she is probably smarter than her brother. Or any boy for that matter. So what does she do? She joins the suffragettes! And by doing this she see’s exactly what it's like to be a suffragette and what they do first hand. Though it's not as nice as it seems. She takes part in a hunger strike while she's in prison; like many suffragettes before her. She gets ill afterward and though she did what she believed was right, she soon realized that it wasn't such a great idea.
But in some ways, it made her a better person in the future because she knew exactly what it was like and why they were fighting for their rights.
May is fifteen and has been a part of the suffragettes along with her mother for a while now. She campaigns and she fights for the rights of women in a peaceful way. By handing out flyers, by going to meetings and talks. Again like Evelyn, she knows what it's like to have money and to be in a better situation than some women who don't even have that.
Nell, who’s grown up not knowing money, she's always tried to work and help her mother with whatever she can. She later meets May and the two of them fall in love and dream of a better world. She joins the cause of ‘Women's Rights’ and fights for them. Because why should men get everything?
All three girls are very different and all want something out of their vote. They all become a part of the suffragettes in their own different ways.
Sally Nicholls gives you a great insight into the past, bringing it to life again. Questioning what life was like back then, for woman and the government. She does all this by turning three stories into a reality that we all now take for granted. Even now women don't use their votes.
My opinion is that no matter whether you like politics or even believe in them, you should always use your vote. That's what I think anyway. For the simple fact, women died for your right to vote. It's your life as well you should use your vote to make the world better. To have a say.
From the suffragettes to WWI and it's 'we can do it’ attitude, this book is amazing inside and out. From the facts and the stories within its pages to the history lesson of fighting for your rights - to what women did to help in the war, you need to try this book.
So would you be one of the suffragettes, or did you have one in your family? It would be interesting to know.
Just remember, we can all do it.
Love, Christina ?