Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
JT (287 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
I've always said that the vast majority of horror remakes just don’t better the original, and this one can also join that list. Stephen King adaptations are a bit hit and miss and this new incarnation is no different.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel. The film follows the Creed family as they relocate to the outskirts of a quiet town in Maine, called Ludlow. Head of the family Louis (Jason Clarke), is starting a new job at the university hospital and their new home feels like the perfect place to settle.
But it doesn’t take long for things to go pear-shaped when daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence) stumbles across a Pet Sematary (misspelt). There she meets neighbour Jud Crandall (John Lithgow) who warns her that it is not the place for a young girl to play – despite a procession of creepy children in masks walking through the woods. However, a family tragedy sparks Jud to reach out to Louis and offer him a way to resurrect the past.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel
Co-directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer Pet Sematary skims over family relationships and races right to the tragedy (which was blatantly given away in the trailer) to satisfy the audience by giving them what they want. However, there is not enough time for Kölsch and Widmyer to delve deeper into the pages of King’s novel to extract parts that could have enhanced the narrative even further.
The ending is unsatisfactory and the directors, looking to impart their take on the story, change and leave out significant parts of King’s book. This is both annoying and surprising. That said, the film is not without the odd positive, despite falling just short of being a decent horror remake.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel. The film follows the Creed family as they relocate to the outskirts of a quiet town in Maine, called Ludlow. Head of the family Louis (Jason Clarke), is starting a new job at the university hospital and their new home feels like the perfect place to settle.
But it doesn’t take long for things to go pear-shaped when daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence) stumbles across a Pet Sematary (misspelt). There she meets neighbour Jud Crandall (John Lithgow) who warns her that it is not the place for a young girl to play – despite a procession of creepy children in masks walking through the woods. However, a family tragedy sparks Jud to reach out to Louis and offer him a way to resurrect the past.
Providing a few decent scares throughout it never quite lives up to the highs of King’s terrifying novel
Co-directed by Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer Pet Sematary skims over family relationships and races right to the tragedy (which was blatantly given away in the trailer) to satisfy the audience by giving them what they want. However, there is not enough time for Kölsch and Widmyer to delve deeper into the pages of King’s novel to extract parts that could have enhanced the narrative even further.
The ending is unsatisfactory and the directors, looking to impart their take on the story, change and leave out significant parts of King’s book. This is both annoying and surprising. That said, the film is not without the odd positive, despite falling just short of being a decent horror remake.
The Quest for Cardenio: Shakespeare, Fletcher, Cervantes, and the Lost Play
Gary Taylor and David Carnegie
Book
This book is about the search for a lost play. Celebrating the quatercentenary of publication of the...
Remixology: Classic Cocktails, Reconsidered and Reinvented
Julia Hastings-Black and Michael Turback
Book
History tells us that once a cocktail achieved prominence at the bar, the impulse to invent...
Kelly Knows (95 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Jun 27, 2019
Press Start to Join The Rebellion
A truly excellent movie for the whole family to enjoy. Ready Player One has all of the elements required for a movie to truly excel in the telling of its story. The action is epic, the heroes are cool, and oh boy the fun and laughs you'll have along the way. The voice acting cast was well handled, but is probably the main reason I did not give this one full points. The studio could have gotten higher level actors to sell the more emotional plot points. Olivia Cooke and Tye Sheridan still do a masterful job with their roles, but some lines were delivered with a Spy Kids level of corniness. In truth, you have to hunt for flaws in this movie as if they were easter eggs themselves. Parzival, and the rest of the hunters on the quest, weave a beautiful tapestry of tropes that blends modern gaming escapism with social revolution. Not all the characters are super deep, nor do they have to be. You will find yourself cheering for the good guys, and jeering the bad. That's the beauty of this movie. It is a perfect chance to enjoy a thrilling tale of adventure, romance, and world domination, without having to buckle in for an Oscar level drama. The best of this movie however, and the reason I would ultimately recommend it to just about anyone is the sheer beauty and power of the visual effects, and the warm nostalgia that permeates every aspect of the plot. Pop culture references that are sure to make you grin are peppered throughout as the story unfolds. Any gamer, movie buff, rebel at heart, or really just about anyone who has ever had any kind of electronic fun since the 60s will find a note in the proverbial song meant just for them. Get your game face on, this is a good one.
The Murder of William of Norwich: The Origins of the Blood Libel in Medieval Europe
Book
In 1144, the mutilated body of William of Norwich, a young apprentice leatherworker, was found...
DaveySmithy (107 KP) rated Wicked (2024) in Movies
Dec 3, 2024
A Magical, If Slightly Uneven Journey
The long-awaited Wicked movie finally graces the big screen in 2024, bringing the beloved Broadway musical to life with all the magic, heart, and soaring melodies that made it iconic. Directed by Jon M. Chu, this adaptation dives deep into the untold story of the witches of Oz, offering stunning visuals, powerhouse performances, and emotional depth that will captivate fans of the musical and newcomers alike.
The film explores the complex relationship between Elphaba (played by Cynthia Erivo), the misunderstood green-skinned girl who will become the Wicked Witch of the West, and Glinda (Ariana Grande), the glamorous and ambitious witch-in-training. Both actresses deliver strong performances, with Erivo’s soulful voice shining in ballads like “Defying Gravity” and “I’m Not That Girl.” Grande brings charm and humor to Glinda, though her performance occasionally leans into caricature rather than character depth.
Visually, Wicked is breathtaking. The vibrant and intricate production design transports viewers to a fantastical Oz, from the emerald spires of the Emerald City to the mystical forests of Shiz University. Coupled with dazzling costume design and vivid CGI, the world feels alive and immersive.
However, the film does falter in pacing. At over two hours, certain scenes—particularly in the first act—feel overly drawn out, while others are rushed. Some of the musical numbers lose their emotional weight due to awkward transitions from dialogue to song, a challenge many stage-to-screen adaptations face.
Despite these shortcomings, Wicked soars where it matters most: its emotional core. The themes of friendship, identity, and the cost of doing what’s right resonate deeply. By the time the climactic “For Good” duet arrives, the film earns its tears and applause.
While not perfect, Wicked (2024) is a spellbinding adaptation that captures much of the magic of the original musical. Fans will walk away satisfied, and newcomers will find themselves enchanted. A solid 8/10.
The long-awaited Wicked movie finally graces the big screen in 2024, bringing the beloved Broadway musical to life with all the magic, heart, and soaring melodies that made it iconic. Directed by Jon M. Chu, this adaptation dives deep into the untold story of the witches of Oz, offering stunning visuals, powerhouse performances, and emotional depth that will captivate fans of the musical and newcomers alike.
The film explores the complex relationship between Elphaba (played by Cynthia Erivo), the misunderstood green-skinned girl who will become the Wicked Witch of the West, and Glinda (Ariana Grande), the glamorous and ambitious witch-in-training. Both actresses deliver strong performances, with Erivo’s soulful voice shining in ballads like “Defying Gravity” and “I’m Not That Girl.” Grande brings charm and humor to Glinda, though her performance occasionally leans into caricature rather than character depth.
Visually, Wicked is breathtaking. The vibrant and intricate production design transports viewers to a fantastical Oz, from the emerald spires of the Emerald City to the mystical forests of Shiz University. Coupled with dazzling costume design and vivid CGI, the world feels alive and immersive.
However, the film does falter in pacing. At over two hours, certain scenes—particularly in the first act—feel overly drawn out, while others are rushed. Some of the musical numbers lose their emotional weight due to awkward transitions from dialogue to song, a challenge many stage-to-screen adaptations face.
Despite these shortcomings, Wicked soars where it matters most: its emotional core. The themes of friendship, identity, and the cost of doing what’s right resonate deeply. By the time the climactic “For Good” duet arrives, the film earns its tears and applause.
While not perfect, Wicked (2024) is a spellbinding adaptation that captures much of the magic of the original musical. Fans will walk away satisfied, and newcomers will find themselves enchanted. A solid 8/10.
SummerLGrant (185 KP) rated The Handmaid's Tale - Season 1 in TV
Aug 2, 2017
Very true to the book, any expansion feels like a natural evolution (3 more)
An amazing cast bringing the characters to life
So good at tugging at all sorts of emotions
Relevant, now and always
Everyone needs to watch it
It comes from a small but powerful book. So disturbingly close to how reality could be it's not really surprising how relevant it is to what's happening in the world. Although tackling hard topics, often with harsh outcomes, the show treats every dark twist and turn with empathy - the writers don't want to shy away from the important issues but at the same time they don't want us to flinch and stop watching because it's important that we see.
There are some differences to the book, of course. The main one being June, she's stronger in the show, more determined. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because they had to make adaptations in order for it to work on the screen and I think they way they've done it is genius. She doesn't come across as an entirely different character, if you compare her to the June from the book it's more like they mostly travelled the same path but made a few different decision along the way. Along with this stronger June comes a bit more hope, is it possible that she'll be able to escape? Is it possible that she'll meet Moira, Luke and Hannah again? Can there really be an end to the regime in Gilead?
Each of the characters are strong and memorable, brought to life by a brilliant cast of people. One minute you can be sympathising for them and the next absolutely loathing them. Not only is that a sign of how good the acting is but also how amazing the writing on the show was. A tense show that builds up throughout the series, while it never feels over-packed it is full of messages for all of us to take to heart and keep in mind.
With a second season confirmed it's now going beyond the scope of the book and that's exciting, we get to see where June's story goes and with the open-ended way the book finished who knows where it'll go.
There are some differences to the book, of course. The main one being June, she's stronger in the show, more determined. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because they had to make adaptations in order for it to work on the screen and I think they way they've done it is genius. She doesn't come across as an entirely different character, if you compare her to the June from the book it's more like they mostly travelled the same path but made a few different decision along the way. Along with this stronger June comes a bit more hope, is it possible that she'll be able to escape? Is it possible that she'll meet Moira, Luke and Hannah again? Can there really be an end to the regime in Gilead?
Each of the characters are strong and memorable, brought to life by a brilliant cast of people. One minute you can be sympathising for them and the next absolutely loathing them. Not only is that a sign of how good the acting is but also how amazing the writing on the show was. A tense show that builds up throughout the series, while it never feels over-packed it is full of messages for all of us to take to heart and keep in mind.
With a second season confirmed it's now going beyond the scope of the book and that's exciting, we get to see where June's story goes and with the open-ended way the book finished who knows where it'll go.
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/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Last Airbender (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
The four elemental nations once got along thanks to the help of the master of the elements, the Avatar. But that was in the past. Long ago the Avatar disappeared and the power hungry Fire Nation has since been destroying all other nations in an attempt to develop their natural element wielding skills. But the discovery of a mysteriously tattooed boy, Aang, found in the ice by a young waterbender, Katara, and her brother, Sokka, may mean there is a way to achieve peace and once again unite the elements.
The first Avatar movie very closely follows the story of the first season, called Book One, of the original television show. However the translation of the beloved Nickelodeon cartoon into film has taken some very serious criticism for changes made in the race of the actors who portray the lead characters.
To make fans further iffy about the film the plot moves so quickly that at times the lead characters directly state the story to one another, a distracting and very obvious plot device. Furthering the film’s strange execution is the poor over-acting that fills almost every “emotional” scene. While this strong form of drama is very accurate to the original cartoon, the impact is lost in the translation to the big screen.
Still some things about seeing “The Last Airbender” as a film are really fun. The costumes and environments are both true to the original story. Adding to the fun are clever real world adaptations of the original show’s details, such as Aang’s Airbender tattoos. But where the film really excels is in the elemental battles that define the frequent and large-scale action sequences. Part fantasy and part martial art inspired, these fight scenes help to define the characters while providing visual speed to the otherwise overly paced film.
Fans will enjoy seeing the ideas of “The Last Airbender” executed in live action, but there is no real need for 3D. The film does show some of the character developing talent M. Night Shyamalan is known for, but the rushed pace and forced drama is hard to ignore.
The first Avatar movie very closely follows the story of the first season, called Book One, of the original television show. However the translation of the beloved Nickelodeon cartoon into film has taken some very serious criticism for changes made in the race of the actors who portray the lead characters.
To make fans further iffy about the film the plot moves so quickly that at times the lead characters directly state the story to one another, a distracting and very obvious plot device. Furthering the film’s strange execution is the poor over-acting that fills almost every “emotional” scene. While this strong form of drama is very accurate to the original cartoon, the impact is lost in the translation to the big screen.
Still some things about seeing “The Last Airbender” as a film are really fun. The costumes and environments are both true to the original story. Adding to the fun are clever real world adaptations of the original show’s details, such as Aang’s Airbender tattoos. But where the film really excels is in the elemental battles that define the frequent and large-scale action sequences. Part fantasy and part martial art inspired, these fight scenes help to define the characters while providing visual speed to the otherwise overly paced film.
Fans will enjoy seeing the ideas of “The Last Airbender” executed in live action, but there is no real need for 3D. The film does show some of the character developing talent M. Night Shyamalan is known for, but the rushed pace and forced drama is hard to ignore.