Search
Search results
David McK (3687 KP) rated World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie Wars in Books
May 14, 2023
Audiobooks, I find, are a bit of a strange beast: some are good; some are terrible.
I think it all depends on the skill of the narrator, and how close they are to how the character 'sounds' in your head when you're reading a book: in audio (and televisual) form, after all, you are relying on someone else's characterisation.
That is where a unique - at least, I've never come across one quite like this before - hook comes in. Sure, I've listened to a few Graphic Audio's (essentially, a dramatization for the listeners) with a wide cast of characters (each performed by a different actor) before but I don't think I've ever come across one presented like this: essentially, as interviews with survivors of a global apocalypse, the World War Z(ed, not Zee - I'm British) of the title.
Forget the Brad Pitt starring movie of the same name: while it does take the occasional pointer from this, it's a very different beast indeed.
Instead, this is presented as Max Brooks - a survivor of the War - interviewing notable, key and even sometimes seemingly normal, mundane survivors of the fictional outbreak, in chronological order from the earliest inkling that something was wrong, through to the outbreak proper, the fall of society, the fight back against the hordes and the eventual reclamation of society.
I do have to say, however, that I felt that more than a few of the chapters 'sounded' the same (and I mean that in the style and tone of language used, not so much in the verbal intonation - although there is also an element of that in the audiobook), and that I did find myself 'zoning out' for periods of time. As I listened to the audiobook version, it also didn't help that one section would sound like a character was whispering (=sounds up full), and then the very next I would have to hurriedly turn the volume down if I didn't want to be deafened ...
I think it all depends on the skill of the narrator, and how close they are to how the character 'sounds' in your head when you're reading a book: in audio (and televisual) form, after all, you are relying on someone else's characterisation.
That is where a unique - at least, I've never come across one quite like this before - hook comes in. Sure, I've listened to a few Graphic Audio's (essentially, a dramatization for the listeners) with a wide cast of characters (each performed by a different actor) before but I don't think I've ever come across one presented like this: essentially, as interviews with survivors of a global apocalypse, the World War Z(ed, not Zee - I'm British) of the title.
Forget the Brad Pitt starring movie of the same name: while it does take the occasional pointer from this, it's a very different beast indeed.
Instead, this is presented as Max Brooks - a survivor of the War - interviewing notable, key and even sometimes seemingly normal, mundane survivors of the fictional outbreak, in chronological order from the earliest inkling that something was wrong, through to the outbreak proper, the fall of society, the fight back against the hordes and the eventual reclamation of society.
I do have to say, however, that I felt that more than a few of the chapters 'sounded' the same (and I mean that in the style and tone of language used, not so much in the verbal intonation - although there is also an element of that in the audiobook), and that I did find myself 'zoning out' for periods of time. As I listened to the audiobook version, it also didn't help that one section would sound like a character was whispering (=sounds up full), and then the very next I would have to hurriedly turn the volume down if I didn't want to be deafened ...
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
Poor Dani!
Coming off the critical and box office success of Hereditary, would writer/director Ari Aster avoid the sophomore slump with his 2nd major feature, Midsommar, I would say that is a resounding YES!
Following a major immediate family heartbreak, delicately fragile Dani is an emotional basket case and leaning hard on her current boyfriend, Christian. Little does she know, the boyfriend has had enough of her baggage and constant nagging, and his friends have all but convinced him to ditch her. They are also planning a fun vacation to Sweden to meet the family of mutual friend Pelle. Unfortunately, the turmoil in Dani's life not only prevents the break up, but also compels Christian to invite her along on the guys' Scandinavian adventure much to the chagrin of the male brotherhood.
Once on the ground in Sweden, the troupe makes their way to the commune of Pelle's extended "family" where the group quickly enhances their experience with some mind altering substances. Dani is unsure she should partake along with the group, but doesn't want to ruin the fun so she goes along.
The group get introduced to the commune clan and wanders through some awkward initial meetings including having to deal with a language barrier. Everyone seems nice, but there also seems there may be some tension beneath the surface. The group is shown around the campus, through various buildings with unusual and often graphic paintings within, The group is also instructed where they cannot go as it is forbidden.
Initial curiosity soon turns to horror as the newcomers witness a ritual which has grim consequences. Some members of the newbies, especially Dani, want to leave before witnessing anything else, but others, including Christian play off the encounter as one of cultural differences. Situations become increasing violent, creepy and really strange as the trespassers struggle to fin in, make some faux pas and may have to pay the ultimate price.
As with Aster's Hereditary, the audience may be somewhat confused at times (or at least I was) as to some of the various happenings, but just go along for the ride. There were a few sections mid way through I was waiting and expecting something profound to happen and didn't. I also watched the director's cut with around 24 extra minutes of footage within which could have been part of the problem.
Once the creepy events start to unfold, you are truly immersed in the scenery and unusual characters to the point where you can't help but keep watching just to see the consequences. The obvious comparison to The Wicker Man is certainly justified as the other most famous movie about a cult, but the mood is completely different. To me, Wicker Man never really does a good job establishing the community there as normal as you suspect almost immediately things are "not right". Maybe also since that film runs barely over 90 minutes the depth wasn't felt as it is in this film. I'm not complaining about Wicker Man as I loved that movie as well, just felt different.
The sprawling European countrysides alongside the beautiful mountainous greenery provided juxtaposition to the sinister, cruel and horrible events transpiring upon them. The artwork within the village halls were interesting, beautiful and terrifying simultaneously. The villages costumes of whit and female floral headdresses helped gain them what you would picture in your head a vicious, but pretty cult would look like for sure.
I was happy to see relative newcomer Florence Pugh looks to have a fledgling acting career as she has already wrapped Greta Gerwig's Little Women and is also starring alongside Scarlett Johansson in Black Widow coming May 2020. She provides Dani with vulnerability, strength, annoyance, trepidation, melancholy, veracity and emotional turmoil as a well rounded young adult. Her character has a truly remarkable arc within the film which is fun to watch and you root for her to succeed.
Midsommar's tone, subject matter and graphic brutality is not for everyone;; however, I found it a true delight.
Following a major immediate family heartbreak, delicately fragile Dani is an emotional basket case and leaning hard on her current boyfriend, Christian. Little does she know, the boyfriend has had enough of her baggage and constant nagging, and his friends have all but convinced him to ditch her. They are also planning a fun vacation to Sweden to meet the family of mutual friend Pelle. Unfortunately, the turmoil in Dani's life not only prevents the break up, but also compels Christian to invite her along on the guys' Scandinavian adventure much to the chagrin of the male brotherhood.
Once on the ground in Sweden, the troupe makes their way to the commune of Pelle's extended "family" where the group quickly enhances their experience with some mind altering substances. Dani is unsure she should partake along with the group, but doesn't want to ruin the fun so she goes along.
The group get introduced to the commune clan and wanders through some awkward initial meetings including having to deal with a language barrier. Everyone seems nice, but there also seems there may be some tension beneath the surface. The group is shown around the campus, through various buildings with unusual and often graphic paintings within, The group is also instructed where they cannot go as it is forbidden.
Initial curiosity soon turns to horror as the newcomers witness a ritual which has grim consequences. Some members of the newbies, especially Dani, want to leave before witnessing anything else, but others, including Christian play off the encounter as one of cultural differences. Situations become increasing violent, creepy and really strange as the trespassers struggle to fin in, make some faux pas and may have to pay the ultimate price.
As with Aster's Hereditary, the audience may be somewhat confused at times (or at least I was) as to some of the various happenings, but just go along for the ride. There were a few sections mid way through I was waiting and expecting something profound to happen and didn't. I also watched the director's cut with around 24 extra minutes of footage within which could have been part of the problem.
Once the creepy events start to unfold, you are truly immersed in the scenery and unusual characters to the point where you can't help but keep watching just to see the consequences. The obvious comparison to The Wicker Man is certainly justified as the other most famous movie about a cult, but the mood is completely different. To me, Wicker Man never really does a good job establishing the community there as normal as you suspect almost immediately things are "not right". Maybe also since that film runs barely over 90 minutes the depth wasn't felt as it is in this film. I'm not complaining about Wicker Man as I loved that movie as well, just felt different.
The sprawling European countrysides alongside the beautiful mountainous greenery provided juxtaposition to the sinister, cruel and horrible events transpiring upon them. The artwork within the village halls were interesting, beautiful and terrifying simultaneously. The villages costumes of whit and female floral headdresses helped gain them what you would picture in your head a vicious, but pretty cult would look like for sure.
I was happy to see relative newcomer Florence Pugh looks to have a fledgling acting career as she has already wrapped Greta Gerwig's Little Women and is also starring alongside Scarlett Johansson in Black Widow coming May 2020. She provides Dani with vulnerability, strength, annoyance, trepidation, melancholy, veracity and emotional turmoil as a well rounded young adult. Her character has a truly remarkable arc within the film which is fun to watch and you root for her to succeed.
Midsommar's tone, subject matter and graphic brutality is not for everyone;; however, I found it a true delight.
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Blithe Spirit (2020) in Movies
Mar 31, 2021 (Updated Mar 31, 2021)
The women act like shrews. (6 more)
Cheap jokes.
Lack of class and style.
Poor character development.
No depth to the characters at all.
Unsophisticated.
Would have been funnier without the sex jokes.
No! No! No! This is not the way Noel Coward is meant to be seen. Avoid this!
Contains spoilers, click to show
I am a HUGE fan of Noel Coward and absolutely adore the original Blithe Spirit. I had high hopes for this version as I like all of the actors involved in the movie. Unfortunately, it was a complete disappointment. Judi Dench's Madame Arcati paled in the memory of Margaret Rutherford, though much of the dialogue and actions during the seance scene were the same. She tried her best but the script just wasn't any good. I did appreciate the backstory of her losing her husband in the Boer War and that being the reason she was interested in the occult. The significance of the song Always was not mentioned, though it was very important to the plot in the original and made the movie relatable. Gone was the ethereal, sweet, mischievous little minx Elvira, played by Kay Hammond in the original. Enter the selfish, unlovable shrew of a first wife, played by the usually lovable Leslie Mann in the remake. The relationship between Charles and Elvira does not make any sense to the viewer and there was no point for them to have been together or for her to have thought of her and to bring her forth in the present. This is a missed plot point. In the original, it is actually the maid who was thinking of Elvira, not Charles, but the maid is merely a go-between for props in this movie and has no reason for being there, nor the chef. The relationship between Ruth and Charles is also not a good one and they have no reason to be together in this remake, though in the original, they at least have a few things in common. They seem to have nothing but derision toward each other. Again, I don't see the point of them being together. All of them are miserable together. Even when Elvira and Charles are intimate, it is not for romance and love but for mere hatred, jealousy, and spite. There is even a cheap crotch shot joke that I was appalled to see in this work. And the ending of the movie makes little sense. It's hardly the charming farce Noel Coward intended. Oh, the horrors. Skip this version. Watch the original. Trust me on this. This movie is not the way Noel Coward is meant to be seen.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 22 July (2018) in Movies
Oct 22, 2018 (Updated Oct 22, 2018)
Good Direction (1 more)
Well Acted
An Important, If Terrifying Recent Tragedy
22 July is a Netflix film directed by Paul Greengrass about a brutal 2011 terrorist attack in Oslo.
This film is hard to watch.
I'm a guy that loves gory action flicks and intense horror movies, but something like this is far more disturbing to me. The film is so well made on a technical level, that at some points it actually feels like you are watching the real life massacre play out, which to me felt a little bit too real. Thankfully, I have never been affected by an act of terrorism, nor has anyone that I know, but if I had, I'm not sure how I would feel about someone making a movie like this retelling the trauma that those people went through.
I appreciate that this is an important event in recent history and shouldn't be something that is easily forgotten, but the brutal realism of this film is hard to stomach at times. It really puts you in the shoes of the victims and let's you imagine the terror and crippling fear that they must have felt.
The actor that plays the perpetrator of the attack, Anders Behring Breivik, (played by Anders Danielsen Lie,) has to be commended. He was so believable in the role that I ended up getting really angry every time that he appeared in a scene. I don't even want to know what an actor has to do to get into that headspace, but he put in an absolutely sublime performance as a deplorable scumbag.
The other standout role was Jonas Strand Gravli as Viljar Hanssen, one of the victims of the attack. He is the audience's main conduit into this horrific event and he is brilliant throughout the film.
The main criticism that I have is that we are shown this horrific attack in brutal detail and the aftermath of the event, with no real purpose. I am not sure what the point of this movie was other than to retell a gut wrenching, terrifying story of a real life terrorist attack. I guess, if you were to do some reaching, you could say that the fact that the film has no point echoes the fact that this brutal act of mass violence also had no point and sometimes these horrific things just happen with no real reason.
Overall, this is a very well made movie. It is full of heavy emotions and will make you think about the nature of the human mind. This is if you can get through it though, the movie is very hard to watch and I can see a good amount of folks turning off because they can't handle it, which I can totally understand.
This film is hard to watch.
I'm a guy that loves gory action flicks and intense horror movies, but something like this is far more disturbing to me. The film is so well made on a technical level, that at some points it actually feels like you are watching the real life massacre play out, which to me felt a little bit too real. Thankfully, I have never been affected by an act of terrorism, nor has anyone that I know, but if I had, I'm not sure how I would feel about someone making a movie like this retelling the trauma that those people went through.
I appreciate that this is an important event in recent history and shouldn't be something that is easily forgotten, but the brutal realism of this film is hard to stomach at times. It really puts you in the shoes of the victims and let's you imagine the terror and crippling fear that they must have felt.
The actor that plays the perpetrator of the attack, Anders Behring Breivik, (played by Anders Danielsen Lie,) has to be commended. He was so believable in the role that I ended up getting really angry every time that he appeared in a scene. I don't even want to know what an actor has to do to get into that headspace, but he put in an absolutely sublime performance as a deplorable scumbag.
The other standout role was Jonas Strand Gravli as Viljar Hanssen, one of the victims of the attack. He is the audience's main conduit into this horrific event and he is brilliant throughout the film.
The main criticism that I have is that we are shown this horrific attack in brutal detail and the aftermath of the event, with no real purpose. I am not sure what the point of this movie was other than to retell a gut wrenching, terrifying story of a real life terrorist attack. I guess, if you were to do some reaching, you could say that the fact that the film has no point echoes the fact that this brutal act of mass violence also had no point and sometimes these horrific things just happen with no real reason.
Overall, this is a very well made movie. It is full of heavy emotions and will make you think about the nature of the human mind. This is if you can get through it though, the movie is very hard to watch and I can see a good amount of folks turning off because they can't handle it, which I can totally understand.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Bumblebee (2018) in Movies
Jan 23, 2019 (Updated Jan 23, 2019)
Chock-full of tropes (1 more)
Pretty lazy in most aspects
Bit of a Buzzkill
When this movie dropped late last year, I never paid any attention to it. Everything in the Transformers series has been awful since the first movie and although I knew that Michael Bay wasn't directing this one, I was still more than happy to skip it. However, after it opened to rave reviews, it peaked my interest a bit. I was hearing all sorts of good things, with this movie even being compared to the likes of ET and The Goonies. Well last night we went to the cinema planning to see Glass, but had missed the previous showing and didn't want to wait around for hours until the next one so we decided to check out Bumblebee to see if it could live up to the hype surrounding it.
TL;DR - It didn't...
I think that I did go into this movie with fairly lofty expectations, but that was due to what I had heard from other people through word-of-mouth. In fact, I don't think I heard one bad review for this thing, so I really was expecting something great. Unfortunately, what you get is a mediocre Hollywood shlock-fest with some pretty impressive CGI, but a painfully formulaic story with a lazy script and actors phoning in their performances.
Let's start with the main positive of the movie; the CGI. The animators really did do an incredible job here and there are some truly awesome action sequences that were really impressive to witness, (it's just unfortunate that we had already seen most of these sequences prior to seeing the movie in the trailers.) The robots also felt much more grimy, weighty and realistic in this film as opposed to the more slick and polished feel that they all had in Bay's Transformers movies, which helped to make it more convincing that the robots were actually present in the room with the actors rather than being added in later in post production.
The other bright spot in the movie was John Cena. Sure, he has played the stereotypical army jarhead plenty of times before, but he is still charismatic and engaging whenever he is onscreen. His career is definitely benefitting from taking roles like this where he is able to be taken less seriously rather than trying to be a super serious action star in forgettable movies like The Marine.
Unfortunately that is about it for the positives, everything else is extremely lazy and generic. The direction is serviceable, the cinematography is nothing special and the score goes through the motions it has to in order to meet the tone of each scene. The script is full of extremely cheesy lines which is delivered half heartedly by the cast who it feels like are pretty much sleepwalking through this thing for the most part. Some characters are fairly irritating such as Memo and Ron, but nothing anywhere near as egregious as Mudflap and Skids from the previous Transformers movies.
And that last statement pretty much sums up my opinion on this movie. Sure, it isn't anywhere near as annoying, obnoxious, or cringe-inducing as the movies that Michael Bay previously gave us in the main Transformers series, but it is still really cheesy and lazy and isn't anything special at all.
I think that this movie serves as a lesson for managing your expectations when going to see a film. Due to the fact that the previous Transformers movies are SO bad and so poorly regarded, most people went into this one with little to no expectation that it would be any good. When it actually turned out to be surprisingly half decent, people were so shocked that they began telling everyone else how fantastic this thing was, when it actually isn't fantastic in any way, it's just less garbage than what we were getting before with these movies. Then, because of all of these brilliant reviews, I have went in expecting something substantial and meaningful and came away sorely disappointed because it turned out to be unremarkable and mediocre.
Overall, I probably would have got more out of this movie if I was told beforehand to just switch off my brain and expect a cheesy popcorn flick. Instead I went in expecting this generation's E.T because of the overblown reviews and was let down pretty hard. It's not the worst film of last year and it is better than anything else in the Transformers series since the first movie, but it's still not anything special. There are a few highs throughout the movie, but in general it's pretty unremarkable and I don't seeing it standing the test of time in the same way that the movies that it's being compared to have done.
TL;DR - It didn't...
I think that I did go into this movie with fairly lofty expectations, but that was due to what I had heard from other people through word-of-mouth. In fact, I don't think I heard one bad review for this thing, so I really was expecting something great. Unfortunately, what you get is a mediocre Hollywood shlock-fest with some pretty impressive CGI, but a painfully formulaic story with a lazy script and actors phoning in their performances.
Let's start with the main positive of the movie; the CGI. The animators really did do an incredible job here and there are some truly awesome action sequences that were really impressive to witness, (it's just unfortunate that we had already seen most of these sequences prior to seeing the movie in the trailers.) The robots also felt much more grimy, weighty and realistic in this film as opposed to the more slick and polished feel that they all had in Bay's Transformers movies, which helped to make it more convincing that the robots were actually present in the room with the actors rather than being added in later in post production.
The other bright spot in the movie was John Cena. Sure, he has played the stereotypical army jarhead plenty of times before, but he is still charismatic and engaging whenever he is onscreen. His career is definitely benefitting from taking roles like this where he is able to be taken less seriously rather than trying to be a super serious action star in forgettable movies like The Marine.
Unfortunately that is about it for the positives, everything else is extremely lazy and generic. The direction is serviceable, the cinematography is nothing special and the score goes through the motions it has to in order to meet the tone of each scene. The script is full of extremely cheesy lines which is delivered half heartedly by the cast who it feels like are pretty much sleepwalking through this thing for the most part. Some characters are fairly irritating such as Memo and Ron, but nothing anywhere near as egregious as Mudflap and Skids from the previous Transformers movies.
And that last statement pretty much sums up my opinion on this movie. Sure, it isn't anywhere near as annoying, obnoxious, or cringe-inducing as the movies that Michael Bay previously gave us in the main Transformers series, but it is still really cheesy and lazy and isn't anything special at all.
I think that this movie serves as a lesson for managing your expectations when going to see a film. Due to the fact that the previous Transformers movies are SO bad and so poorly regarded, most people went into this one with little to no expectation that it would be any good. When it actually turned out to be surprisingly half decent, people were so shocked that they began telling everyone else how fantastic this thing was, when it actually isn't fantastic in any way, it's just less garbage than what we were getting before with these movies. Then, because of all of these brilliant reviews, I have went in expecting something substantial and meaningful and came away sorely disappointed because it turned out to be unremarkable and mediocre.
Overall, I probably would have got more out of this movie if I was told beforehand to just switch off my brain and expect a cheesy popcorn flick. Instead I went in expecting this generation's E.T because of the overblown reviews and was let down pretty hard. It's not the worst film of last year and it is better than anything else in the Transformers series since the first movie, but it's still not anything special. There are a few highs throughout the movie, but in general it's pretty unremarkable and I don't seeing it standing the test of time in the same way that the movies that it's being compared to have done.
David McK (3687 KP) rated The Eagle of the Ninth in Books
Jan 28, 2019
So, this is history (and told in the foreword of this novel): Sometime about the year AD 117, the Roman Ninth Legion marched north to deal with an uprising among the Caledonian tribes (in what is now Scotland), and were never heard of again. Also, nearly eighteen hundred years later during excavations at Silchester, a wingless Roman Eagle was dug up, buried under the fields.
But how did it come to be there?
While no-one knows for certain, those 2 facts together form the starting point for this story, which sees the son of the last commander of said Legion traveling North 'beyond the [Hadrians] wall' to search for and return said Eagle after his partial recovery from his laming during an attack on his outpost, and after he hears rumours of an Imperial Eagle in the Celts hands.
He is accompanied on this journey by his freed slave, whom he had previously (before the journey, during his recovery) rescued from the Arena.
While I had previously seen the 2011 film of the same name, I'd actually never read the source material before, so was unable to say how truly it stuck to the same.
Now I have, and I have to say: said movie does stick remarkably close, even if not entirely faithfully. the book, I found, could be a bit slow at times, and also tended to gloss over the less pleasant (shall we say) aspects of Roman society, with the Romans largely portrayed as civilized as compared to the uncouth Barbarians.
But then again, this is -supposedly - a children's book, and also a product of its time (first published, remember, in the 1950s).
But how did it come to be there?
While no-one knows for certain, those 2 facts together form the starting point for this story, which sees the son of the last commander of said Legion traveling North 'beyond the [Hadrians] wall' to search for and return said Eagle after his partial recovery from his laming during an attack on his outpost, and after he hears rumours of an Imperial Eagle in the Celts hands.
He is accompanied on this journey by his freed slave, whom he had previously (before the journey, during his recovery) rescued from the Arena.
While I had previously seen the 2011 film of the same name, I'd actually never read the source material before, so was unable to say how truly it stuck to the same.
Now I have, and I have to say: said movie does stick remarkably close, even if not entirely faithfully. the book, I found, could be a bit slow at times, and also tended to gloss over the less pleasant (shall we say) aspects of Roman society, with the Romans largely portrayed as civilized as compared to the uncouth Barbarians.
But then again, this is -supposedly - a children's book, and also a product of its time (first published, remember, in the 1950s).
Awix (3310 KP) rated Godzilla: Final Wars (2004) in Movies
Feb 8, 2018
Everything but the Nagashidai
Almost wholly nuts kaiju-SF movie originally produced for the 50th anniversary of Godzilla's first appearance. It actually does a pretty good job of having something for everyone - everyone who's ever enjoyed a Godzilla film, anyway. The plot is certainly reminiscent of some of the 60s movies - aliens from Planet X (seriously) turn up and initially pretend to be friendly, but turn out to be intent on taking over the world, using their ability to control almost all of Earth's monsters. Naturally, Godzilla is immune, and the desperate human characters resort to releasing Godzilla from the prison he's been in for years so he can sort the invaders out - even if this will mean him having to fight virtually every other monster on the planet almost single-handed.
All very promising, if you like this sort of thing, but the director's clear desire to actually be making a Matrix sequel is a bit intrusive - there's a lot of human-on-human martial arts action which isn't what I personally turn up to a Godzilla movie for. The sheer knowing silliness of the film may also be off-putting for some viewers.
But set against all that, there's a bit where Mothra battles Gigan! There's a fight between proper Japanese Godzilla and the mutant iguana pretender from the Roland Emmerich version! You get to see Baby Godzilla sitting in the cab of a pick-up truck during an unexpected subplot about hitch-hiking! And much more. (Keith Emerson's soundtrack is very atypical for a Godzilla film, but actually pretty funky.) The sheer profusion of monsters - nearly every Toho beastie makes at least a cameo, the only big-name absentee being Mechagodzilla - and the cheerful craziness of the story make this, if not quite an entirely worthy tribute to Godzilla's first fifty years, then certainly a very hard film to completely dislike.
All very promising, if you like this sort of thing, but the director's clear desire to actually be making a Matrix sequel is a bit intrusive - there's a lot of human-on-human martial arts action which isn't what I personally turn up to a Godzilla movie for. The sheer knowing silliness of the film may also be off-putting for some viewers.
But set against all that, there's a bit where Mothra battles Gigan! There's a fight between proper Japanese Godzilla and the mutant iguana pretender from the Roland Emmerich version! You get to see Baby Godzilla sitting in the cab of a pick-up truck during an unexpected subplot about hitch-hiking! And much more. (Keith Emerson's soundtrack is very atypical for a Godzilla film, but actually pretty funky.) The sheer profusion of monsters - nearly every Toho beastie makes at least a cameo, the only big-name absentee being Mechagodzilla - and the cheerful craziness of the story make this, if not quite an entirely worthy tribute to Godzilla's first fifty years, then certainly a very hard film to completely dislike.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Beastly (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The beauty and the beast story has officially entered the world of modern fashion in the new film Beastly. In this adaptation we meet Kyle (Alex Pettyfer) a rich kid who believes that a handsome exterior is all that counts in this world. That is until he slights emo student witch Kendra (Mary-Kate Olsen). Kyle soon finds himself with a beastly appearance, cursed until he can overcome his new fractured form and make someone fall in love with him. Adding to the cast is Kyle’s love interest and all around nice girl, Lindy (Vanessa Hudgens). Also notable is Kyle’s mentor/tutor Will played by Neil Patrick Harris.
Sticking closely to the predictable and extremely overdone plot, Beastly offers audiences very little they have not seen before. Kyle is overdramatic. Lindy is suspiciously like the character Vanessa Hudgens played in “High School Musical”. And we learn that Neil Patrick Harris, while always funny, does not play a convincing blind man.
The film does have good scenery and a soundtrack that is high school appropriate. Moreover, the wardrobe is strikingly impressive. But trite dialogue and poorly paced emotional cues give the film a juvenile comedic result. Beastly is amusing and a little funny, however it completely misses the emotional connection expected from a teen adaptation of a famous romantic tale.
Further distracting from the film’s romantic plot are the numerous hollow side stories and plethora of unnecessary character details. From the sudden trip to Kyle’s family cabin to the violent fight between Lindy’s father and a drug dealer, the movie includes numerous scenes that should have been cut.
But still, even with all the downsides, I had no interest in leaving the theater, because Beastly was a high budget train wreck. Not unlike a B-movie in quality and dialogue yet with an impressive budget, an Olsen sister, and some serious face tattoos, “Beastly” is simply cheesy.
Sticking closely to the predictable and extremely overdone plot, Beastly offers audiences very little they have not seen before. Kyle is overdramatic. Lindy is suspiciously like the character Vanessa Hudgens played in “High School Musical”. And we learn that Neil Patrick Harris, while always funny, does not play a convincing blind man.
The film does have good scenery and a soundtrack that is high school appropriate. Moreover, the wardrobe is strikingly impressive. But trite dialogue and poorly paced emotional cues give the film a juvenile comedic result. Beastly is amusing and a little funny, however it completely misses the emotional connection expected from a teen adaptation of a famous romantic tale.
Further distracting from the film’s romantic plot are the numerous hollow side stories and plethora of unnecessary character details. From the sudden trip to Kyle’s family cabin to the violent fight between Lindy’s father and a drug dealer, the movie includes numerous scenes that should have been cut.
But still, even with all the downsides, I had no interest in leaving the theater, because Beastly was a high budget train wreck. Not unlike a B-movie in quality and dialogue yet with an impressive budget, an Olsen sister, and some serious face tattoos, “Beastly” is simply cheesy.
Terry Gilliam recommended Pinocchio (1940) in Movies (curated)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Batman (1989) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Batman- i love this movie, i have seen it about 7-9 times. I love michael Keaton as bruce wayne/batman. I love jack nicholson as the joker. This movie has action, comedy, suspense, laughing gas, a prince song, adventure and so much more. Also you have darkness, romance, lots of screaming from Vicki Vale played by Kim Basinger. Did i mention that Tim Burton directed this film.
The Plot: Having witnessed his parents' brutal murder as a child, millionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) fights crime in Gotham City disguised as Batman, a costumed hero who strikes fear into the hearts of villains. But when a deformed madman who calls himself "The Joker" (Jack Nicholson) seizes control of Gotham's criminal underworld, Batman must face his most ruthless nemesis ever while protecting both his identity and his love interest, reporter Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger).
Keaton's casting caused a controversy since, by 1988, he had become typecast as a comedic actor and many observers doubted he could portray a serious role. Nicholson accepted the role of the Joker under strict conditions that dictated top billing, a high salary, a portion of the box office profits and his own shooting schedule.
The tone and themes of the film were influenced in part by Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. The film primarily adapts the "Red Hood" origin story for the Joker, in which Batman inadvertently creates the Joker by causing him to fall into Axis Chemical acid, resulting in his transformation into a psychopath, but it adds a unique twist in presenting him specifically as a gangster named Jack Napier.
Considered the role of Batman, including Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Charlie Sheen, Tom Selleck, Bill Murray, Harrison Ford and Dennis Quaid.
Brad Dourif, Tim Curry, David Bowie, John Lithgow and James Woods were considered for the Joker.
This film is great and should be watched.
The Plot: Having witnessed his parents' brutal murder as a child, millionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) fights crime in Gotham City disguised as Batman, a costumed hero who strikes fear into the hearts of villains. But when a deformed madman who calls himself "The Joker" (Jack Nicholson) seizes control of Gotham's criminal underworld, Batman must face his most ruthless nemesis ever while protecting both his identity and his love interest, reporter Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger).
Keaton's casting caused a controversy since, by 1988, he had become typecast as a comedic actor and many observers doubted he could portray a serious role. Nicholson accepted the role of the Joker under strict conditions that dictated top billing, a high salary, a portion of the box office profits and his own shooting schedule.
The tone and themes of the film were influenced in part by Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. The film primarily adapts the "Red Hood" origin story for the Joker, in which Batman inadvertently creates the Joker by causing him to fall into Axis Chemical acid, resulting in his transformation into a psychopath, but it adds a unique twist in presenting him specifically as a gangster named Jack Napier.
Considered the role of Batman, including Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Charlie Sheen, Tom Selleck, Bill Murray, Harrison Ford and Dennis Quaid.
Brad Dourif, Tim Curry, David Bowie, John Lithgow and James Woods were considered for the Joker.
This film is great and should be watched.
