Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated It's a Wonderful Life (1946) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
After George Bailey wishes he had never been born, an angel is sent to earth to make his wish come true. George starts to realise how many lives he has changed and impacted, and how they would be different if he was never there.
This one is being shown as part of a classic Christmas line up at Cineworld. I like the idea of seeing some golden oldies on the screen, and I'm a little ashamed to admit that I have never seen this one. It really felt like I needed to fix that.
Is there anything more wonderful than an opening credit scene on an old movie? A printed book with a title page and all the actors listed out... I think not.
I'm not sure this will make it into my list of favourite Christmas movies, even though it was lovely. Old films do get me deep down, there's something so much more wonderful about them than some of the overly CGId modern films.
You've always got the great message of this film to fall back on too. You don't know how your life has impacted someone else. You shouldn't wish it away, you never know who it might impact in the future.
This one is being shown as part of a classic Christmas line up at Cineworld. I like the idea of seeing some golden oldies on the screen, and I'm a little ashamed to admit that I have never seen this one. It really felt like I needed to fix that.
Is there anything more wonderful than an opening credit scene on an old movie? A printed book with a title page and all the actors listed out... I think not.
I'm not sure this will make it into my list of favourite Christmas movies, even though it was lovely. Old films do get me deep down, there's something so much more wonderful about them than some of the overly CGId modern films.
You've always got the great message of this film to fall back on too. You don't know how your life has impacted someone else. You shouldn't wish it away, you never know who it might impact in the future.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated What's Eating Gilbert Grape (1993) in Movies
Jan 14, 2021
Didn't Age Well
I have a few qualms with this film. I think the sentiment is great. I understand the many levels that each of the characters provides and I think the actors did a great job. I think the problem with this film is the timing. This film would've never made it to screen if it was released or even conceived in the last several years. I think the idea of an able-bodied, neurotypical man playing that of a neurodiverse character is just shoddy in it of itself. Not to say that Leo wasn't good, because he was. Obviously if you've seen any of his other works, you know Leo is great. But the sentiment still stands.
I feel like this movie is a lot more philosophical than I ever expected it to be. I didn't have a lot of expectations going in as I'd never really heard anything about the movie beyond the title, but I think it was a lot of metaphorical, philosophical meanings that were meant to be taken from the film.
It's definitely interesting to see how older films age and in my opinion, this one didn't age well.
I feel like this movie is a lot more philosophical than I ever expected it to be. I didn't have a lot of expectations going in as I'd never really heard anything about the movie beyond the title, but I think it was a lot of metaphorical, philosophical meanings that were meant to be taken from the film.
It's definitely interesting to see how older films age and in my opinion, this one didn't age well.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Fantastic Four (1994) in Movies
Jul 30, 2020
You Think You've Seen Bad?
Before the 2005 stinker, New Horizons film company tried their hand at creating the origin story of a group of four that become superheroes after coming in contact with a meteor collision in space. Both bombed miserably. This version is one of the all-time worst movies I have seen in my life.
Acting: 2
Beginning: 1
Characters: 3
Cinematography/Visuals: 1
If you are looking for some of the worst special effects you have seen in your life, look no further. The scene that points this out more than anything is the one where they first discover their powers. The low-budgetness of it all is mindblowing. You’ll have to see it to believe it but it will feel like you’re watching a PBS special.
Conflict: 0
Entertainment Value: 0
Memorability: 5
It is memorable but only in a sense of how bad it is. It’s one of those movies you could watch with friends and pick a part while drinking or smoking, whatever your poison is. It’s bad, sure, but in an unforgettable type of way.
Pace: 1
Hard as a rock to decipher or get through. There is never really a story so it’s hard to manage a pace against something that doesn’t exist. For what it’s worth, it is consistent. Consistently bad.
Plot: 0
I feel like I’ve heard six-year-olds tell better stories than this. At no point does the way this story unfold makes sense. There’s not set up, not character development, no motivations. It’s just…bad.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 17
For what it’s worth, I gave Battlefield Earth the same exact score and that movie had a massive budget with A-list actors. Fantastic Four is a nightmare but I can say I’ve seen worse. If you’re a fan of movies, I say watch it! Never hurts to check a turd off your list every once in awhile.
Acting: 2
Beginning: 1
Characters: 3
Cinematography/Visuals: 1
If you are looking for some of the worst special effects you have seen in your life, look no further. The scene that points this out more than anything is the one where they first discover their powers. The low-budgetness of it all is mindblowing. You’ll have to see it to believe it but it will feel like you’re watching a PBS special.
Conflict: 0
Entertainment Value: 0
Memorability: 5
It is memorable but only in a sense of how bad it is. It’s one of those movies you could watch with friends and pick a part while drinking or smoking, whatever your poison is. It’s bad, sure, but in an unforgettable type of way.
Pace: 1
Hard as a rock to decipher or get through. There is never really a story so it’s hard to manage a pace against something that doesn’t exist. For what it’s worth, it is consistent. Consistently bad.
Plot: 0
I feel like I’ve heard six-year-olds tell better stories than this. At no point does the way this story unfold makes sense. There’s not set up, not character development, no motivations. It’s just…bad.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 17
For what it’s worth, I gave Battlefield Earth the same exact score and that movie had a massive budget with A-list actors. Fantastic Four is a nightmare but I can say I’ve seen worse. If you’re a fan of movies, I say watch it! Never hurts to check a turd off your list every once in awhile.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Graceland (2013) in Movies
Apr 3, 2018
Amazing
Graceland is one of those films you remember for a long time after you've watched it. Set in the Philippines, the story revolves around Marlon Villar (Arnold Reyes) who is ambushed while driving his daughter and his boss' daughter home. Things spin wildly out of control when the kidnappers demand a ransom.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The more I thought about Graceland as a whole, the more it made me think about how well things were filmed. The film is shot in a dark style, giving it a fitting gritty feel that sets the tone throughout. Particularly effective for me were the jarring moments that occur in close quarters, powerful and shocking at the same time. There are a number of points in the film that, due to how things were shot, will stick in my head for years to come.
Conflict: 10
Graceland is jarring and real because of the conflict created. The film never really gives you a chance to catch your breath at any point. You expect things to go one way and then are thrown for another loop. There was never a point where I felt like I could relax, which is exactly the feeling I look for in these type of films.
Genre: 8
Very interesting, original spin on your typical kidnapping story. While you empathize with the main character, you wonder if he's doing the right thing at the same time. He is faced with some tough decisions which you find out very early on in the story. You can never really tell up from down at any point. I can honestly say that I haven't really seen anything like it.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 91
Besides seeing film classics, Movies 365 has been all about me finding hidden gems like this one. Watch Graceland currently on Vudu for free. You won't regret it.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The more I thought about Graceland as a whole, the more it made me think about how well things were filmed. The film is shot in a dark style, giving it a fitting gritty feel that sets the tone throughout. Particularly effective for me were the jarring moments that occur in close quarters, powerful and shocking at the same time. There are a number of points in the film that, due to how things were shot, will stick in my head for years to come.
Conflict: 10
Graceland is jarring and real because of the conflict created. The film never really gives you a chance to catch your breath at any point. You expect things to go one way and then are thrown for another loop. There was never a point where I felt like I could relax, which is exactly the feeling I look for in these type of films.
Genre: 8
Very interesting, original spin on your typical kidnapping story. While you empathize with the main character, you wonder if he's doing the right thing at the same time. He is faced with some tough decisions which you find out very early on in the story. You can never really tell up from down at any point. I can honestly say that I haven't really seen anything like it.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 91
Besides seeing film classics, Movies 365 has been all about me finding hidden gems like this one. Watch Graceland currently on Vudu for free. You won't regret it.
Amanda Palmer recommended In the Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel in Music (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Trauma Centre (2019) in Movies
Jun 9, 2020
Many moons ago I said to myself that I shouldn't watch films with big stars in if I'd never heard of them before they become available to buy, Steven Seagal was the reason for this rule in the beginning... when and why did I ever forsake that idea?
After witnessing a crime Madison ends up in hospital recovering from injuries she sustained in the incident. What she doesn't realise is that she's hiding evidence that will lead straight to her attackers. Her only chance is a cop assigned to watch her and her own wits.
I picked this up on Prime as the rental for members was only £1.99, that seems like a bargain... I can't say I was convinced after I finished it.
Trauma Centre is a very basic crime thriller, it doesn't ever stray into anything out of the ordinary. If it wasn't for the fact this was a new release I'd have said I'd seen it before and just forgotten all about it.
Nicky Whelan is probably the best of the bunch when it comes to the acting, but I think that's mainly because she gets to act manic and terrorised for most of it and that gave her the ability to act her way out of poor scripting.
We've also got Steve Guttenberg playing the doctor and it was nice to see him in something new. I loved so many of his films when I was growing up so this felt almost nostalgic... but it's an odd character and thankfully he doesn't pop up in a lot of scenes.
And then there's Brucey. I've watched a lot of Bruce Willis films and while some of them aren't great they've never really been bad. Dubious, yes. Bad, no. Saying Willis' performance was lazy may be being generous. There's no energy in the role at all and every scene looks like he's just woken up from a nap and isn't really sure where he is. This should have been an easily doable role for "classic" Willis with minimal effort.
Everything in the film left me kind of blanks. As I mentioned at the beginning, this film could have been any of several you've already seen. With just a small amount of effort (mainly with the script and the acting) this could have been a watchable 3.5 starred action film, but as it is there's little enjoyment to be had.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/trauma-centre-movie-review.html
After witnessing a crime Madison ends up in hospital recovering from injuries she sustained in the incident. What she doesn't realise is that she's hiding evidence that will lead straight to her attackers. Her only chance is a cop assigned to watch her and her own wits.
I picked this up on Prime as the rental for members was only £1.99, that seems like a bargain... I can't say I was convinced after I finished it.
Trauma Centre is a very basic crime thriller, it doesn't ever stray into anything out of the ordinary. If it wasn't for the fact this was a new release I'd have said I'd seen it before and just forgotten all about it.
Nicky Whelan is probably the best of the bunch when it comes to the acting, but I think that's mainly because she gets to act manic and terrorised for most of it and that gave her the ability to act her way out of poor scripting.
We've also got Steve Guttenberg playing the doctor and it was nice to see him in something new. I loved so many of his films when I was growing up so this felt almost nostalgic... but it's an odd character and thankfully he doesn't pop up in a lot of scenes.
And then there's Brucey. I've watched a lot of Bruce Willis films and while some of them aren't great they've never really been bad. Dubious, yes. Bad, no. Saying Willis' performance was lazy may be being generous. There's no energy in the role at all and every scene looks like he's just woken up from a nap and isn't really sure where he is. This should have been an easily doable role for "classic" Willis with minimal effort.
Everything in the film left me kind of blanks. As I mentioned at the beginning, this film could have been any of several you've already seen. With just a small amount of effort (mainly with the script and the acting) this could have been a watchable 3.5 starred action film, but as it is there's little enjoyment to be had.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/trauma-centre-movie-review.html
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Turbo Kid (2015) in Movies
Apr 21, 2018
Extremely Unique
You've never seen anything like it. It was a mashup of everything I loved, both as a kid and as an adult. Set in the post-apocalyptic year of 1997, a teenager becomes a superhero to save his girlfriend from the clutches of an evil villain.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
While it may not grab you immediately, Turbo Kid's beginning succeeds in establishing the world you'll be living in for the rest of the film. This world never left the 80's. Survivors get around on mostly bikes and use old-school technology like walkmen.
My interest was really piqued when I saw three heads on pikes out in the middle of the wasteland. What did those men do to deserve that? Who put them there? The only way to really find out is to watch more. On we go...
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The visuals are extremely weird, but in a unique, good way. It's original in every way imaginable. A number of shots give you a nostalgic feel. Other shots panning the landscape leave you with a barren, hopeless feeling. So sad what their world has become, yet what an era to be stuck in!
There is violence. A lot of it. A surprising amount in fact. Heads roll, guts spew in brilliant fashion. Think Tarantino in a Mad Max type of setting. It's jarring to look at, but very entertaining and effective. If you are squeamish in anyway, you may find yourself averting your eyes. At one point, my wife actually had to leave the room.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
As far as action/adventure films go, this stands out as being extremely original. It was as if they took a number of films I had seen before and jumbled them all into one finished product. The action pops on screen and the adventure portions move the story along in swift fashion.
Memorability: 9
Pace: 10
The film never gets boring at any point. Between the crazy vibe that latches on to you with the help of an awesome soundtrack and the steady play of action, you're always engaged. I also appreciated that the film never took itself too seriously as the action is broken up by a few hilarious moments that keeps the film from getting too dark.
Plot: 8
While the plot may seem pretty straightforward at first, there are a couple twists that keep things interesting. Overall the story is a strong foundation and is intriguing enough to make you care about the action.
Resolution: 3
Overall: 86
Fun, enjoyable film. And AVAILABLE ON NETFLIX! Check it out tonight. If you're a fan of action and the 80's, you will have a blast.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
While it may not grab you immediately, Turbo Kid's beginning succeeds in establishing the world you'll be living in for the rest of the film. This world never left the 80's. Survivors get around on mostly bikes and use old-school technology like walkmen.
My interest was really piqued when I saw three heads on pikes out in the middle of the wasteland. What did those men do to deserve that? Who put them there? The only way to really find out is to watch more. On we go...
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The visuals are extremely weird, but in a unique, good way. It's original in every way imaginable. A number of shots give you a nostalgic feel. Other shots panning the landscape leave you with a barren, hopeless feeling. So sad what their world has become, yet what an era to be stuck in!
There is violence. A lot of it. A surprising amount in fact. Heads roll, guts spew in brilliant fashion. Think Tarantino in a Mad Max type of setting. It's jarring to look at, but very entertaining and effective. If you are squeamish in anyway, you may find yourself averting your eyes. At one point, my wife actually had to leave the room.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
As far as action/adventure films go, this stands out as being extremely original. It was as if they took a number of films I had seen before and jumbled them all into one finished product. The action pops on screen and the adventure portions move the story along in swift fashion.
Memorability: 9
Pace: 10
The film never gets boring at any point. Between the crazy vibe that latches on to you with the help of an awesome soundtrack and the steady play of action, you're always engaged. I also appreciated that the film never took itself too seriously as the action is broken up by a few hilarious moments that keeps the film from getting too dark.
Plot: 8
While the plot may seem pretty straightforward at first, there are a couple twists that keep things interesting. Overall the story is a strong foundation and is intriguing enough to make you care about the action.
Resolution: 3
Overall: 86
Fun, enjoyable film. And AVAILABLE ON NETFLIX! Check it out tonight. If you're a fan of action and the 80's, you will have a blast.
Adam Ant recommended New York Dolls by New York Dolls in Music (curated)
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Game Of Thrones in TV
Jul 1, 2019
Winter has come and gone... and there won't ever be anything like it again!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Game of Thrones. The only show that drove people to brag on social media about the fact they've never seen it every time a new series came out!
I watched this from Season 3, quickly binging the first two seasons about a week before it aired. I'm not a huge Fantasy fan, but this show really was something else. Despite the setting, it gave us everything - blood, guts, drama, sex... even comedy. It gave us some of the most vile and hated antagonists to ever grace the screen, and it made heroes out of the unlikeliest of people.
Watching it week-to-week was difficult for a couple of reasons. One, so much is going on (especially in the earlier seasons) that you can forget a lot in a week, and you find yourself questioning everything. Two, it's so bloody good, you didn't want to wait a whole week to get your fix! Obviously, now it's finished, the second issue is no longer relevant - it's available to binge to your heart's content, which you absolutely should do.
I want to address the recent criticism of the eighth and final season. We waited over two years for it, and many people felt it was rushed, too short and too shallow. I would say 75% of people who watched the last season were left disappointed. Myself included.
But a few days after it had finished, I found myself thinking about the series as a whole more and more. I was reading articles online, theories and arguments about how and why the story played out the way it did. I realised I had felt somewhat detached watching Season 8 because it HAD been two years since I watched Season 7. It's as if I'd forgotten what it was like to watch it.
So, having never seen any episode more than once, I went back to the beginning and watched all eight seasons in a little under three weeks...
SO MUCH BETTER the second time around!
For two reasons. Firstly, there was no break in the story at all. Watching it as it aired meant you had a 12-month break every 10 hours, basically. Easy to lose your thread. Easy to forget things. When that doesn't happen, it's much more enjoyable and actually makes a lot more sense. There was so much I'd forgotten over the course of the nine years it was on, I kind of felt like I'd cheated myself, in a way, by not watching Seasons 1-7 before Season 8 aired.
Second, much in the way that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 work better if you've seen 4-6 first, Game of Thrones was actually much more enjoyable having seen the ending, because things make a lot more sense in retrospect.
***This is where it gets spoilery***
It becomes evident early on, even in the first season, that Jon Snow is one to watch. His shocking death at the end of Season 5 caused much confusion and debate. Obviously, his resurrection early in Season 6 put an end to that, and when the secret about his true identity is finally revealed in Season 8, it was a shocking moment, as everything started to fall into place and the true threat became evident.
However...
Having now done Seasons 1-8 back-to-back, the revelation that Jon Snow is, in fact, a Targaryen is far from surprising, given they've been dropping clues about it since back in the first few episodes. Obviously, at the time, these seemingly throwaway comments meant nothing, but now we know, there are numerous conversations throughout the show that border on being spoilers themselves.
Same with Arya Stark and her storyline. Second time around, even from Season 1, it's evident she was destined to slay The Night King. And as with Jon Snow, you never would've picked up on it at the time, but in hindsight it's been obvious for years.
Now, the major criticism about Season 8 was that it felt rushed and that it sacrificed too many characters arcs for the sake of finishing inside of six episodes. Watching it as it aired, I completely agreed. Jon Snow "suddenly" went from a brooding hero to a pointless extra. Daenerys Targaryen "suddenly" went from the freer of slaves and saviour of Westeros to an insane despot who slaughtered half the world because someone took her toys away.
Not true.
It seemed like that after two years of forgetting almost everything that had happened previously, but watching it from start to finish in one go, those things make perfect sense, and aren't actually that sudden. The Mother of Dragons showed clear and obvious signs of becoming The Mad Queen of Ashes very early on in the show. She was always kind and fair and just... but my goodness, did you get it if you pissed her off! Let's not forget she crucified almost 200 slave-owners long after they surrendered to prove a point. And poor Sam Tarly's father and brother! She had a mean streak, and she lived on a knife's edge. At any point since she married Khal Drogo back at the beginning of Season 1, the slightest push and she would snap. Fast forward to Season 8 and, after many years of fighting to fulfil her birthright and take the Iron Throne, she finds out she's not actually the heir to it at all... that's a pretty big push to a woman with a history of losing her shit when things don't go her way. So not much of a surprise at all, really.
And to address the criticism further, I'll analyse this as a writer. I tell stories for a living. When you're writing a novel, you look at it as a triangle, of sorts. It starts off wide and gradually gets to a point. Game of Thrones began very wide, with lots of characters and subplots. But as time goes on, it narrows and becomes more focused on the main threat... the main storylines - the battle against The Night King and the fight for the Iron Throne. Those two things are what nine years of storytelling were working towards, so yes, when you get to the final season and you have to wrap things up, it makes sense that you're going to focus on the big finish - the point of the series.
Not only that, for the first six seasons, the shows writers and creators had their hands held by George R. R. Martin and his source material. But then the TV show caught up with the books, which meant they suddenly had nothing more than a handful of bullet points to work off instead. Not easy to go from one to the other. They can't embellish things too much, because they run the risk of contradicting and undermining future books, which Mr. Martin wouldn't allow them to do. So they had to keep it simple, stick to the point and finish the job they started - nothing more.
Ultimately, no one likes to see their favourite show end. In hindsight, I think a lot of the criticism the final season received was because the audience forgot what came before it, and because they didn't want it to end.
If you're reading this having never watched it before.... first of all, sorry for ruining the story for you (but I did say it contained spoilers, in my defence). But you have the benefit of being able to binge through this, which means you'll get the full, uninterrupted experience, which is well worth the investment of your time to do.
If you HAVE watched the show before, I strongly suggest re-watching it from the beginning, because I enjoyed it far more the second time around.
This is the kind of show that comes along once a generation. The kind of show people talk about daily long after it finished. It redefines TV drama and I can promise you, you'll never see anything like it again.
That said, don't watch it if you're easily offended or grossed out. Or if you like animals. Oh, and don't watch Season 4, Episode 8 whilst you're eating. And don't watch Season 3, Episode 9 if you believe in the afterlife and have your heart set on getting into Heaven. And it's perfectly acceptable to watch Season 6, Episode 9 and feel like that's what you would do if faced with certain death.
Just perfect.
I watched this from Season 3, quickly binging the first two seasons about a week before it aired. I'm not a huge Fantasy fan, but this show really was something else. Despite the setting, it gave us everything - blood, guts, drama, sex... even comedy. It gave us some of the most vile and hated antagonists to ever grace the screen, and it made heroes out of the unlikeliest of people.
Watching it week-to-week was difficult for a couple of reasons. One, so much is going on (especially in the earlier seasons) that you can forget a lot in a week, and you find yourself questioning everything. Two, it's so bloody good, you didn't want to wait a whole week to get your fix! Obviously, now it's finished, the second issue is no longer relevant - it's available to binge to your heart's content, which you absolutely should do.
I want to address the recent criticism of the eighth and final season. We waited over two years for it, and many people felt it was rushed, too short and too shallow. I would say 75% of people who watched the last season were left disappointed. Myself included.
But a few days after it had finished, I found myself thinking about the series as a whole more and more. I was reading articles online, theories and arguments about how and why the story played out the way it did. I realised I had felt somewhat detached watching Season 8 because it HAD been two years since I watched Season 7. It's as if I'd forgotten what it was like to watch it.
So, having never seen any episode more than once, I went back to the beginning and watched all eight seasons in a little under three weeks...
SO MUCH BETTER the second time around!
For two reasons. Firstly, there was no break in the story at all. Watching it as it aired meant you had a 12-month break every 10 hours, basically. Easy to lose your thread. Easy to forget things. When that doesn't happen, it's much more enjoyable and actually makes a lot more sense. There was so much I'd forgotten over the course of the nine years it was on, I kind of felt like I'd cheated myself, in a way, by not watching Seasons 1-7 before Season 8 aired.
Second, much in the way that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 work better if you've seen 4-6 first, Game of Thrones was actually much more enjoyable having seen the ending, because things make a lot more sense in retrospect.
***This is where it gets spoilery***
It becomes evident early on, even in the first season, that Jon Snow is one to watch. His shocking death at the end of Season 5 caused much confusion and debate. Obviously, his resurrection early in Season 6 put an end to that, and when the secret about his true identity is finally revealed in Season 8, it was a shocking moment, as everything started to fall into place and the true threat became evident.
However...
Having now done Seasons 1-8 back-to-back, the revelation that Jon Snow is, in fact, a Targaryen is far from surprising, given they've been dropping clues about it since back in the first few episodes. Obviously, at the time, these seemingly throwaway comments meant nothing, but now we know, there are numerous conversations throughout the show that border on being spoilers themselves.
Same with Arya Stark and her storyline. Second time around, even from Season 1, it's evident she was destined to slay The Night King. And as with Jon Snow, you never would've picked up on it at the time, but in hindsight it's been obvious for years.
Now, the major criticism about Season 8 was that it felt rushed and that it sacrificed too many characters arcs for the sake of finishing inside of six episodes. Watching it as it aired, I completely agreed. Jon Snow "suddenly" went from a brooding hero to a pointless extra. Daenerys Targaryen "suddenly" went from the freer of slaves and saviour of Westeros to an insane despot who slaughtered half the world because someone took her toys away.
Not true.
It seemed like that after two years of forgetting almost everything that had happened previously, but watching it from start to finish in one go, those things make perfect sense, and aren't actually that sudden. The Mother of Dragons showed clear and obvious signs of becoming The Mad Queen of Ashes very early on in the show. She was always kind and fair and just... but my goodness, did you get it if you pissed her off! Let's not forget she crucified almost 200 slave-owners long after they surrendered to prove a point. And poor Sam Tarly's father and brother! She had a mean streak, and she lived on a knife's edge. At any point since she married Khal Drogo back at the beginning of Season 1, the slightest push and she would snap. Fast forward to Season 8 and, after many years of fighting to fulfil her birthright and take the Iron Throne, she finds out she's not actually the heir to it at all... that's a pretty big push to a woman with a history of losing her shit when things don't go her way. So not much of a surprise at all, really.
And to address the criticism further, I'll analyse this as a writer. I tell stories for a living. When you're writing a novel, you look at it as a triangle, of sorts. It starts off wide and gradually gets to a point. Game of Thrones began very wide, with lots of characters and subplots. But as time goes on, it narrows and becomes more focused on the main threat... the main storylines - the battle against The Night King and the fight for the Iron Throne. Those two things are what nine years of storytelling were working towards, so yes, when you get to the final season and you have to wrap things up, it makes sense that you're going to focus on the big finish - the point of the series.
Not only that, for the first six seasons, the shows writers and creators had their hands held by George R. R. Martin and his source material. But then the TV show caught up with the books, which meant they suddenly had nothing more than a handful of bullet points to work off instead. Not easy to go from one to the other. They can't embellish things too much, because they run the risk of contradicting and undermining future books, which Mr. Martin wouldn't allow them to do. So they had to keep it simple, stick to the point and finish the job they started - nothing more.
Ultimately, no one likes to see their favourite show end. In hindsight, I think a lot of the criticism the final season received was because the audience forgot what came before it, and because they didn't want it to end.
If you're reading this having never watched it before.... first of all, sorry for ruining the story for you (but I did say it contained spoilers, in my defence). But you have the benefit of being able to binge through this, which means you'll get the full, uninterrupted experience, which is well worth the investment of your time to do.
If you HAVE watched the show before, I strongly suggest re-watching it from the beginning, because I enjoyed it far more the second time around.
This is the kind of show that comes along once a generation. The kind of show people talk about daily long after it finished. It redefines TV drama and I can promise you, you'll never see anything like it again.
That said, don't watch it if you're easily offended or grossed out. Or if you like animals. Oh, and don't watch Season 4, Episode 8 whilst you're eating. And don't watch Season 3, Episode 9 if you believe in the afterlife and have your heart set on getting into Heaven. And it's perfectly acceptable to watch Season 6, Episode 9 and feel like that's what you would do if faced with certain death.
Just perfect.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
Not Quite Ready
I saw this movie in the cinema back when it came out in March earlier this year and I honestly didn't feel ready to review it after a single viewing because of all of the references etc that there was to take in. After watching the movie a couple more times and watching a bunch of Easter Egg videos on Youtube, I feel more equipped to discuss the film.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.