Search
Search results
David McK (3562 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.
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.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 22, 2020 (Updated Jul 5, 2021)
In this sequel to the so far best film of the DCEU, Patty Jenkins dares to ask, what if Wishmaster was a family friendly superhero movie?
Wonder Woman 1984 is an overall mixed experience, but let's begin with some positives. For a start, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman through and through. She shined in the first movie, and is just as bright the second time around. What ever plans are afoot for the future of the DCEU, she should rightly be at the forefront.
Another cast highlight is Kristen Wiig. Her character is designed to be the sympathetic good guy who yearns for more acceptance and influence on the people around her, the relatable type, who inevitably turns into the tragic antagonist. Her arc is handled so-so, and is plagued with cliché "nerdy-girl-becomes-attractive" moments, but Wiig is clearly having a blast in this role, and the movie is better for having her around.
Pedro Pascal is also here as classic DC villain Maxwell Lord. He camps it up to the max, and does well in the seedy businessman type role, but again, his arc is handled in a so-so manner.
It has some genuinely decent set pieces. Highlights include a fun (if a little drawn out) opening scene, and then the big desert car chase glimpsed in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty good (for the most part, I'll get to that in a second) and a few more out-there details (no spoilers here) lifted straight from the comics that add that extra sweet spot of nerdy delight.
This all being said, WW84 does unfortunately suffer from a few pitfalls. The big glaring problem is the pacing. This film is 2.5 hours long, and boy does it drag in places. It could have easily lost 30 minutes without impacting the story, and the end results feels bloated and a bit directionless.
As mentioned above, the effects are great for the most part, but as the trailers show, Cheetah looks a little...off when she eventually turns up. She sort of looks like a colourless CGI blob when engaged in battle, and it's a shame, because some of the close ups look great, as is the overall design of her character.
Some of the narrative beats are a bit choppy, I get the feeling that some parts were cut that could have better explained some things, and then there are some plot beats that just straight up don't make a lick of sense.
And then there's Steve Trevor... Chris Pine is enjoyable enough as per usual, but honestly, his inclusion just feels a little forced. There's an obvious morally tearing plot point as to why he's here, but I felt that overall he just added to the bloatedness. And that's without addressing weird, kind of rapey body possession thing that's going on.
I had an ok time with WW84, but it's held back by a shit tonne of unnecessary clutter that seals it's status as an inferior sequel.
Wonder Woman 1984 is an overall mixed experience, but let's begin with some positives. For a start, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman through and through. She shined in the first movie, and is just as bright the second time around. What ever plans are afoot for the future of the DCEU, she should rightly be at the forefront.
Another cast highlight is Kristen Wiig. Her character is designed to be the sympathetic good guy who yearns for more acceptance and influence on the people around her, the relatable type, who inevitably turns into the tragic antagonist. Her arc is handled so-so, and is plagued with cliché "nerdy-girl-becomes-attractive" moments, but Wiig is clearly having a blast in this role, and the movie is better for having her around.
Pedro Pascal is also here as classic DC villain Maxwell Lord. He camps it up to the max, and does well in the seedy businessman type role, but again, his arc is handled in a so-so manner.
It has some genuinely decent set pieces. Highlights include a fun (if a little drawn out) opening scene, and then the big desert car chase glimpsed in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty good (for the most part, I'll get to that in a second) and a few more out-there details (no spoilers here) lifted straight from the comics that add that extra sweet spot of nerdy delight.
This all being said, WW84 does unfortunately suffer from a few pitfalls. The big glaring problem is the pacing. This film is 2.5 hours long, and boy does it drag in places. It could have easily lost 30 minutes without impacting the story, and the end results feels bloated and a bit directionless.
As mentioned above, the effects are great for the most part, but as the trailers show, Cheetah looks a little...off when she eventually turns up. She sort of looks like a colourless CGI blob when engaged in battle, and it's a shame, because some of the close ups look great, as is the overall design of her character.
Some of the narrative beats are a bit choppy, I get the feeling that some parts were cut that could have better explained some things, and then there are some plot beats that just straight up don't make a lick of sense.
And then there's Steve Trevor... Chris Pine is enjoyable enough as per usual, but honestly, his inclusion just feels a little forced. There's an obvious morally tearing plot point as to why he's here, but I felt that overall he just added to the bloatedness. And that's without addressing weird, kind of rapey body possession thing that's going on.
I had an ok time with WW84, but it's held back by a shit tonne of unnecessary clutter that seals it's status as an inferior sequel.
Loz Hughes (80 KP) rated The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty (2013) in Movies
Jul 15, 2018
The panoramas (3 more)
The soundtrack
The movie's tone and message
The humour
My Antidepressant movie.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I rated this movie as a ten not because I am a Ben stiller fan per se but because of this movie's message and how I identify with the lead character.
Whilst most people will mark this movie lower, they are not wrong in their opinions, for many it may not seem anything special as such.
However I always watch this film whenever I am feeling low or life feels a bit much, because to me, it portrays that its never too late to achieve your dreams and start your adventure.
The film itself opens to an introduction of Walter (Ben stiller), an employee of Life magazine whose job has very much taken over his life, it shows his passion for his work and how he wishes very much, to be more like the adventurous photographer he chronicles. Walter is ridiculed and undermined by his work colleagues for his "spaced out" episodes where he dreams of what he would do or achieve if he were braver, smarter, more confident etc, like an alter ego of sorts.
Walter is then faced with a choice to accept failure and ridicule when he loses a negative in his care or embrace the unknown and not forsake his pride in a journey to hunt down its original owner.
Throughout the film you follow Walter in his quest to search for the missing negative and also his journey on the path of becoming the man he always hoped he would be as a teenager.
Along the way, stunning vistas and scenery set the scene and the humour keeps it from being boring.
Sure the film is a little fanciful but anyone with a good imagination and an element of Walter in them will appreciate it.
My favourite scene is when he is nearly attacked by a shark.."okay. That is not a porpoise" cracks me up every time.
I know a lot of people will mark this film lower and they wont be wrong in their opinions, it doesnt really contain many special effects, it does have a really awkward romance (but lets face it, reality is full of those moments you wish you had been more charming and less of a babbling idiot) and the storyline is a bit far fetched.
However I find it fun, uplifting, charming in its own way and enjoy the travel aspect of it.
Whilst most people will mark this movie lower, they are not wrong in their opinions, for many it may not seem anything special as such.
However I always watch this film whenever I am feeling low or life feels a bit much, because to me, it portrays that its never too late to achieve your dreams and start your adventure.
The film itself opens to an introduction of Walter (Ben stiller), an employee of Life magazine whose job has very much taken over his life, it shows his passion for his work and how he wishes very much, to be more like the adventurous photographer he chronicles. Walter is ridiculed and undermined by his work colleagues for his "spaced out" episodes where he dreams of what he would do or achieve if he were braver, smarter, more confident etc, like an alter ego of sorts.
Walter is then faced with a choice to accept failure and ridicule when he loses a negative in his care or embrace the unknown and not forsake his pride in a journey to hunt down its original owner.
Throughout the film you follow Walter in his quest to search for the missing negative and also his journey on the path of becoming the man he always hoped he would be as a teenager.
Along the way, stunning vistas and scenery set the scene and the humour keeps it from being boring.
Sure the film is a little fanciful but anyone with a good imagination and an element of Walter in them will appreciate it.
My favourite scene is when he is nearly attacked by a shark.."okay. That is not a porpoise" cracks me up every time.
I know a lot of people will mark this film lower and they wont be wrong in their opinions, it doesnt really contain many special effects, it does have a really awkward romance (but lets face it, reality is full of those moments you wish you had been more charming and less of a babbling idiot) and the storyline is a bit far fetched.
However I find it fun, uplifting, charming in its own way and enjoy the travel aspect of it.
Crystal (148 KP) rated Ready Player One in Books
Jun 4, 2018 (Updated Jun 8, 2018)
Gaming references (3 more)
80s Easter eggs
Immersive
Not your typical dystopia
Don't judge a book by its movie
I still have not seen the movie and I have heard mixed reviews. However, I very much enjoyed this book. If you are into young adult dystopia then this book is for you. Ready Player One is one of the few books I've read multiple times. It is one of those books where you can really catch on to little details you may have missed the first time around. This book is chock full of 80s pop culture references.
I say this book is a bit of a slow starter and that is because of the world building. We get to know the main character and his in real life daily issues and also the craftsmanship of the fully immersive VR world that is the Oasis. I felt like I was plugging in along with the other players.
Synopsis: The story takes place in the very near future. Sky rocketing gas prices have forced people to give up driving. Most people now actually work in a VR office rather than commuting. The economy has fallen apart and people depend on the Oasis for everything. The big baddie is a mega corporation that wants to control the Oasis, and in turn control the country/world. Regular kids raised by the Oasis take on this corporation simply by trying to win an Easter egg hunt set up by the games founder. The stakes are high. What starts off as a contest quickly becomes a matter of life and death as our heroes get closer to solving the quest and winning it all.
I say this book is a bit of a slow starter and that is because of the world building. We get to know the main character and his in real life daily issues and also the craftsmanship of the fully immersive VR world that is the Oasis. I felt like I was plugging in along with the other players.
Synopsis: The story takes place in the very near future. Sky rocketing gas prices have forced people to give up driving. Most people now actually work in a VR office rather than commuting. The economy has fallen apart and people depend on the Oasis for everything. The big baddie is a mega corporation that wants to control the Oasis, and in turn control the country/world. Regular kids raised by the Oasis take on this corporation simply by trying to win an Easter egg hunt set up by the games founder. The stakes are high. What starts off as a contest quickly becomes a matter of life and death as our heroes get closer to solving the quest and winning it all.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) in Movies
Jul 19, 2020
The fall of the franchise.
Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris) now has a psychic connection with Michael Myers, she has visions showing who and where he is going to kill next.
If that sounds dumb to you, then trust me, the movie will feel dumb too.
Halloween 5 feels more like a Friday the 13th movie, filled with dumb teens getting picked off one by one, featuring some unrealistic subplot to distinguish it from other entries.
Gone is the eerie suspense, the music is a shadow of the original's score. Gone too is the tension of asking "where is Michael?" As Jamie's visions literally show us where he is.
There is also a weird change, in Halloween 4 Leslie L. Rohland played the part of Lindsey Wallace, shown as a friend to both Jamie and Rachel (Ellie Cornell), Leslie did not return for H5. In Halloween 5, they cast Wendy Foxworth as Tina Williams. What's confusing is Leslie and Tina are very similar to one another, they look alike and their characters were similar. In H5 they played off like Tina had known Jamie from before. So it begs the question, if you had to recast why not keep the same character? And if you had to change character, why not cast someone unlike Leslie? I don't know but it's always bugged me.
There are a couple of good things to say about it. Some death scenes are intense and brutal, the ending is good, intense with a decent twist.
Overall though, Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers is the first entry in the series that really truly disappointed me, mostly due to its dumb story.
If that sounds dumb to you, then trust me, the movie will feel dumb too.
Halloween 5 feels more like a Friday the 13th movie, filled with dumb teens getting picked off one by one, featuring some unrealistic subplot to distinguish it from other entries.
Gone is the eerie suspense, the music is a shadow of the original's score. Gone too is the tension of asking "where is Michael?" As Jamie's visions literally show us where he is.
There is also a weird change, in Halloween 4 Leslie L. Rohland played the part of Lindsey Wallace, shown as a friend to both Jamie and Rachel (Ellie Cornell), Leslie did not return for H5. In Halloween 5, they cast Wendy Foxworth as Tina Williams. What's confusing is Leslie and Tina are very similar to one another, they look alike and their characters were similar. In H5 they played off like Tina had known Jamie from before. So it begs the question, if you had to recast why not keep the same character? And if you had to change character, why not cast someone unlike Leslie? I don't know but it's always bugged me.
There are a couple of good things to say about it. Some death scenes are intense and brutal, the ending is good, intense with a decent twist.
Overall though, Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers is the first entry in the series that really truly disappointed me, mostly due to its dumb story.