Search
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) in Movies
Feb 10, 2020
I firmly believe that this is one of the best movies on the face of the planet. Anyone who knows me and knows my reviews knows how much it bothers me when film adaptations are so bad or so off or they just lose everything the book had. The exact opposite happens here. I think what makes this movie so good and so well put together is that it's still Stephen's story. He wrote the book, then the screenplay, then he directed it so it was his entire vision coming to life on screen and it worked. I think if anyone else would've directed or wrote the script, it wouldn't have translated so well.
Additionally, this cast is phenomenal. Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Nina Dobrev, Mae Whitman, Kate Walsh, Paul Rudd, it just works. There are some parts from the book that didn't make it to the screen and that definitely bummed me out - I wish we could've seen Bill and Charlie's relationship more because it was really important in the book and it provided a lot for Charlie in terms of safety and comfort. I also wish some of the lines were verbatim. When Sam gets mad at Charlie after truth or dare, in the book she says, "what the fuck is wrong with you?" while in the movie she says, "what the hell is wrong with you?" I know that it's not a huge difference but I think that would've landed so much better. Also when Charlie defends Patrick. In the book, he says, "If you ever do this again, I'll tell everyone and I'll tell everyone for real. If you come after him again, I'll blind you." or something along those lines and I think that would've been great, especially with how low and solid Logan gave the line in the film. Just small things like that, I wish would've made it to screen.
Regardless, this film and this story are incredible and worth watching at least once for everyone. The same goes for the book. A must-read.
Additionally, this cast is phenomenal. Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Nina Dobrev, Mae Whitman, Kate Walsh, Paul Rudd, it just works. There are some parts from the book that didn't make it to the screen and that definitely bummed me out - I wish we could've seen Bill and Charlie's relationship more because it was really important in the book and it provided a lot for Charlie in terms of safety and comfort. I also wish some of the lines were verbatim. When Sam gets mad at Charlie after truth or dare, in the book she says, "what the fuck is wrong with you?" while in the movie she says, "what the hell is wrong with you?" I know that it's not a huge difference but I think that would've landed so much better. Also when Charlie defends Patrick. In the book, he says, "If you ever do this again, I'll tell everyone and I'll tell everyone for real. If you come after him again, I'll blind you." or something along those lines and I think that would've been great, especially with how low and solid Logan gave the line in the film. Just small things like that, I wish would've made it to screen.
Regardless, this film and this story are incredible and worth watching at least once for everyone. The same goes for the book. A must-read.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Lights Out (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Growing up, we all had a fear of the dark. Years later, many of us still carry this phobia. It prevents us from going into certain parts of our homes or places we are familiar with unless we have the assistance of light in some form. The darkness symbolizes and encapsulates the unknown. What is it that is hiding in the darkness? Why is it that we cannot trust it? Is there really something lurking in the shadows or is it all in our minds?
In Lights Out audiences bear witness to this fear and are confronted with how this fear becomes a reality for one family. Rebecca (Teresa Palmer) is trying to make a life of her own after becoming estranged from her family. When her brother begins to experience the same problems at home that had plagued her as a child, she is brought back into the center of chaos. All of the fears return and she must save her family from a dark spirit that has attached itself to her mother before it consumes them all.
The film itself offers the ability for audiences to explore some of their earliest fears which had them leaving a light on or plugging in a night light in their rooms in order to feel safe. The film is inventive in its approach and storytelling, but I felt as though there was more to be offered with respect to the villain and relationships between the characters. Greater depth about their backstories would have allowed audiences to feel more invested in the characters and even more interested in the outcome.
For those that are looking forward to a movie that will have them jumping out of their seats, this film delivers. Many of those moments are not as predictable in many other films of the horror genre, nor does it rely on gore in order to shock audiences. Through the direction of David Sandberg, the tension is allowed to build and help carry the story to its culmination. I am looking forward to more adaptations of universal fears and phobias on screen. Lights Out does not disappoint in being a fright-filled popcorn movie.
In Lights Out audiences bear witness to this fear and are confronted with how this fear becomes a reality for one family. Rebecca (Teresa Palmer) is trying to make a life of her own after becoming estranged from her family. When her brother begins to experience the same problems at home that had plagued her as a child, she is brought back into the center of chaos. All of the fears return and she must save her family from a dark spirit that has attached itself to her mother before it consumes them all.
The film itself offers the ability for audiences to explore some of their earliest fears which had them leaving a light on or plugging in a night light in their rooms in order to feel safe. The film is inventive in its approach and storytelling, but I felt as though there was more to be offered with respect to the villain and relationships between the characters. Greater depth about their backstories would have allowed audiences to feel more invested in the characters and even more interested in the outcome.
For those that are looking forward to a movie that will have them jumping out of their seats, this film delivers. Many of those moments are not as predictable in many other films of the horror genre, nor does it rely on gore in order to shock audiences. Through the direction of David Sandberg, the tension is allowed to build and help carry the story to its culmination. I am looking forward to more adaptations of universal fears and phobias on screen. Lights Out does not disappoint in being a fright-filled popcorn movie.
The Climate Change Impacts on Fisheries and Aquaculture: A Global Analysis
Book
The first comprehensive review of the current and future effects of climate change on the world s...
100 Shakespeare Films
Book
From Oscar-winning British classics to Hollywood musicals and Westerns, from Soviet epics to...
WB
When Broadway Went to Hollywood
Book
The Wizard of Oz, Gigi, Top Hat, High Society - some of the most popular movie musicals ever made...
NF
Nature's Fabric: Leaves in Science and Culture
Book
Leaves are all around us in backyards, cascading from window boxes, even emerging from small cracks...
Solomon Wendt (30 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
May 5, 2019
Nostalgia (1 more)
Video Games
This movie is based off of the book of the same name and matches it for most of the major plot points. In short, the story follows Wade Wilson, an egg hunter (Gunter for short), on the search for a virtual Easter egg that unlock control over the virtual reality known as The Oasis. In a scavenger hunt fashion, there are clues and trials that Wade must figure out and overcome in his attempt at such a coveted prize.
The film follows the major points of the book, but does change the clues and trials so its not the same exact story, which I feel is the purpose of film adaptations. However, as with many sci-fi films, majority of interest here is of the world that is constructed which is quickly glossed over. To be fair, how much more do we really need to than people are addicted to virtual reality and want to have more power in it? But the issue is the sort of background that is left out that can leave the soley film consumers a bit confused or leave more questions. As for the actual content of the film, it is a real nostalgia trip for those who enjoyed 80's pop culture and tries to include more recent fandoms such as Overwatch and Halo. Sadly, the viewer doesn't really take part in the treasure hunt as mystery and adventure films try to do. The clues are obscure and related to the creator of the hunt, so there isn't much guessing at what a clue means until it is flat out explained.
However, with the audience participation aside, it is a good sci-fi adventure that utilizes a good blend of motion capture technology and cgi work. It explore a good variety of worlds, environments, and character models that make this film noteworthy of that aspect of production. It leaves quite the impression and I know I looked up how much virtual reality cost after I was done.
In short, it was a good overall production in terms of tools utilized, but lacked a little bit of story in an attempt to cram a different world and rule set while trying to make a complete adventure and story arc. I recommend viewing it at least once, but doesn't really need to be viewed more than that.
The film follows the major points of the book, but does change the clues and trials so its not the same exact story, which I feel is the purpose of film adaptations. However, as with many sci-fi films, majority of interest here is of the world that is constructed which is quickly glossed over. To be fair, how much more do we really need to than people are addicted to virtual reality and want to have more power in it? But the issue is the sort of background that is left out that can leave the soley film consumers a bit confused or leave more questions. As for the actual content of the film, it is a real nostalgia trip for those who enjoyed 80's pop culture and tries to include more recent fandoms such as Overwatch and Halo. Sadly, the viewer doesn't really take part in the treasure hunt as mystery and adventure films try to do. The clues are obscure and related to the creator of the hunt, so there isn't much guessing at what a clue means until it is flat out explained.
However, with the audience participation aside, it is a good sci-fi adventure that utilizes a good blend of motion capture technology and cgi work. It explore a good variety of worlds, environments, and character models that make this film noteworthy of that aspect of production. It leaves quite the impression and I know I looked up how much virtual reality cost after I was done.
In short, it was a good overall production in terms of tools utilized, but lacked a little bit of story in an attempt to cram a different world and rule set while trying to make a complete adventure and story arc. I recommend viewing it at least once, but doesn't really need to be viewed more than that.
The Interactive Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
Book, Education and Stickers
App
iClassics: Beyond Engrossing iClassics unites the old and the new to create immersive experiences...
BA
Behavioral and Social Science in Medicine: Principles and Practice of Biopsychosocial Care: 2017
Book
Behavioral and Social Science in Medicine: Principles and Practice of Biopsychosocial Care provides...
DaveySmithy (107 KP) rated The Dead Zone (1983) in Movies
Dec 3, 2024
A Chilling and Thoughtful Thriller
David Cronenberg’s The Dead Zone (1983) is a film that quietly lingers with you long after the credits roll. Adapted from Stephen King’s novel, it’s a rare blend of psychological horror, heartfelt drama, and supernatural thriller that doesn’t rely on cheap scares to grip its audience. Instead, it uses its haunting premise, a strong central performance by Christopher Walken, and Cronenberg’s understated direction to craft a deeply unsettling exploration of fate, morality, and the burden of knowing the future.
The story follows Johnny Smith (Walken), an ordinary schoolteacher whose life is upended when a car accident leaves him in a coma for five years. When he awakens, he discovers he has gained the ability to see people’s pasts and futures through physical contact—a gift that feels more like a curse. What begins as an attempt to understand and use this newfound power for good spirals into a dark moral dilemma when Johnny foresees a catastrophic future involving a rising politician, Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen).
Christopher Walken is the emotional core of the film, delivering one of his most human and vulnerable performances. He masterfully conveys Johnny’s pain, loneliness, and reluctant heroism, making his character deeply sympathetic. Walken’s portrayal grounds the supernatural elements of the story, ensuring they never feel far-fetched. Martin Sheen is equally compelling as the menacing and unhinged Stillson, a character whose ambition and ruthlessness are frighteningly plausible.
Cronenberg, known for his visceral body horror, takes a restrained approach here, focusing on mood and atmosphere over gore. This subtlety works to the film’s advantage, allowing the tension to simmer until its gripping climax. The muted color palette and moody score by Michael Kamen add to the sense of dread, perfectly capturing the eerie small-town setting.
However, The Dead Zone isn’t without its flaws. The pacing occasionally drags, and some of the supporting characters feel underdeveloped. Additionally, the episodic structure—though true to the novel—can make the narrative feel uneven.
Despite these minor issues, The Dead Zone is an intelligent and emotionally resonant thriller that explores heavy themes with nuance. It may not be as flashy as other Stephen King adaptations, but its quiet power and moral complexity make it a standout. A solid 8/10.
The story follows Johnny Smith (Walken), an ordinary schoolteacher whose life is upended when a car accident leaves him in a coma for five years. When he awakens, he discovers he has gained the ability to see people’s pasts and futures through physical contact—a gift that feels more like a curse. What begins as an attempt to understand and use this newfound power for good spirals into a dark moral dilemma when Johnny foresees a catastrophic future involving a rising politician, Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen).
Christopher Walken is the emotional core of the film, delivering one of his most human and vulnerable performances. He masterfully conveys Johnny’s pain, loneliness, and reluctant heroism, making his character deeply sympathetic. Walken’s portrayal grounds the supernatural elements of the story, ensuring they never feel far-fetched. Martin Sheen is equally compelling as the menacing and unhinged Stillson, a character whose ambition and ruthlessness are frighteningly plausible.
Cronenberg, known for his visceral body horror, takes a restrained approach here, focusing on mood and atmosphere over gore. This subtlety works to the film’s advantage, allowing the tension to simmer until its gripping climax. The muted color palette and moody score by Michael Kamen add to the sense of dread, perfectly capturing the eerie small-town setting.
However, The Dead Zone isn’t without its flaws. The pacing occasionally drags, and some of the supporting characters feel underdeveloped. Additionally, the episodic structure—though true to the novel—can make the narrative feel uneven.
Despite these minor issues, The Dead Zone is an intelligent and emotionally resonant thriller that explores heavy themes with nuance. It may not be as flashy as other Stephen King adaptations, but its quiet power and moral complexity make it a standout. A solid 8/10.