Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jonah Hex (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
DC is at it again spinning comic book heroes, or better yet anti-heroes, into film adaptations. Moreover, the company is maintaining their one-of-a-kind knack for providing lead characters with bad vocals. In this case the raspy voice belongs to the traumatized lead character, a Bounty Hunter named Jonah Hex (Josh Brolin), who has a story to tell, in brutal and confusing detail.
The film mixes the lore of the Old West, vaguely historical aspects of post-Civil War America, and weapons from a very steampunk-the-Industrial-Revolution. The resulting environment is more explosive than the dynamite that is apparently everywhere.
Filled with ideas that trail off into the dust, it quickly becomes clear that this film was finished in a rush. There are too many characters that lack compelling, if any, back-story. The tale that remains is disjointed and drags. All the buzz about the leading lady, Lilah (Megan Fox), was over minimal participation in the film. Sure she looks nice, and wears a steampunky outfit while performing a few quick stunts, but the resulting character (and poor acting) is not worth the media hype.
The few well-played and interesting characters, aside from the brash but tends-to-grow-on-you Jonah, all have bit parts. Among the best performances are Hex’s best friend, Jeb Turnbull (Jeffery Dean Morgan), one of President Grant’s cohorts, Lieutenant Grass (Will Arnett), and the store owner and gun-runner, Smith (Lance Riddick). Most surprising is that the frequent scenes with screen veteran John Malkovich, as lead bad guy Quentin Turnbull, result in a drab uninterested character that completely fails to engage the audience. It is almost a shockingly poor performance for Malkovich.
But hey, the melding of comic book history with actual film shots in the beginning was some of the best work out there for explaining a complex and multi-media adapted back-story. Additionally, the bold uses of color, costume, sets and scenery made the film visually interesting to watch. But with a budget as big as this film had it is hard to accept there wasn’t a better story to tell.
The film mixes the lore of the Old West, vaguely historical aspects of post-Civil War America, and weapons from a very steampunk-the-Industrial-Revolution. The resulting environment is more explosive than the dynamite that is apparently everywhere.
Filled with ideas that trail off into the dust, it quickly becomes clear that this film was finished in a rush. There are too many characters that lack compelling, if any, back-story. The tale that remains is disjointed and drags. All the buzz about the leading lady, Lilah (Megan Fox), was over minimal participation in the film. Sure she looks nice, and wears a steampunky outfit while performing a few quick stunts, but the resulting character (and poor acting) is not worth the media hype.
The few well-played and interesting characters, aside from the brash but tends-to-grow-on-you Jonah, all have bit parts. Among the best performances are Hex’s best friend, Jeb Turnbull (Jeffery Dean Morgan), one of President Grant’s cohorts, Lieutenant Grass (Will Arnett), and the store owner and gun-runner, Smith (Lance Riddick). Most surprising is that the frequent scenes with screen veteran John Malkovich, as lead bad guy Quentin Turnbull, result in a drab uninterested character that completely fails to engage the audience. It is almost a shockingly poor performance for Malkovich.
But hey, the melding of comic book history with actual film shots in the beginning was some of the best work out there for explaining a complex and multi-media adapted back-story. Additionally, the bold uses of color, costume, sets and scenery made the film visually interesting to watch. But with a budget as big as this film had it is hard to accept there wasn’t a better story to tell.
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...