Search
Search results
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Friend Request (2016) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020 (Updated Oct 6, 2020)
*decline*. Jesus, I usually have a wicked high tolerance for these Gen-Z-catered idiotic mainstream horror flicks but this was abysmal. I'm offended that this could even be uttered within the same sentence as the rip-roaring, unnerving, and highly idiosyncratic ššÆš§š³šŖš¦šÆš„š¦š„ films which - at least for a time - were required to shit on because at the time Facebook was still this relatively new and trendy thing that kids liked... but now that it's dying can we finally admit those were actually both genius *and* truly scary? Especially after this absolutely formless drivel. Flimsily acted even by these movies' low standards, and its depiction of mental illness can be generously described as execrable - it initially begins as a sort of interesting dissection of social media etiquette and the very narrow view of what we consider to be 'weird' by its standards... but then it reveals its true colors by demonizing these very real conditions/behaviors by way of shoddy technophobic bullshit. The thing is, this actually has some good horror movie imagery in it too - a fair amount - but it's made in such a repellent way that I also don't really care. Plus it's overcut to hell.
InSpread -Share photos for Socia lmedia-
Social Networking and Photo & Video
App
By Instagram's API policy change, it was sorry Orimashi followed by a state which can not be used. ...
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Follow You in Books
Dec 3, 2023
184 of 235
Kindle
Follow You
By Richard Parker
āļøāļøāļøāļøāļø
You set the trap. Now you can't escape.
When an online prank goes viral and triggers a spate of gruesome murders, documentary maker Hazel Salter watches in horror. But then Hazel's childhood friend, Meredith Hickman, is the next victim, Hazel knows she has to find out what happened to her.
Is it one killer or more? Random acts of violence or part of a bigger, twisted plan?
The police have no leads, but Hazel has a theory - one she'll stop at nothing to prove - and she also has a film crew. She'll make a documentary, catch the killer, and give Meredith justice.
Her stage is the abandoned amusement park where Meredith was found.
Her cast are the family and friends the killer left behind.
And her crew? They keep disappearing, one by one...
I absolutely loved this! Itās the sort of horror movie Iād watch! It all played out in my head and it was brutal. I didnāt want to put it down. So so good fast paced and well written.
Kindle
Follow You
By Richard Parker
āļøāļøāļøāļøāļø
You set the trap. Now you can't escape.
When an online prank goes viral and triggers a spate of gruesome murders, documentary maker Hazel Salter watches in horror. But then Hazel's childhood friend, Meredith Hickman, is the next victim, Hazel knows she has to find out what happened to her.
Is it one killer or more? Random acts of violence or part of a bigger, twisted plan?
The police have no leads, but Hazel has a theory - one she'll stop at nothing to prove - and she also has a film crew. She'll make a documentary, catch the killer, and give Meredith justice.
Her stage is the abandoned amusement park where Meredith was found.
Her cast are the family and friends the killer left behind.
And her crew? They keep disappearing, one by one...
I absolutely loved this! Itās the sort of horror movie Iād watch! It all played out in my head and it was brutal. I didnāt want to put it down. So so good fast paced and well written.
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated The Trump Prophecy (2018) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019 (Updated Mar 24, 2019)
My prophetic vision of how bad it could get
Contains spoilers, click to show
Part of my bill-paying job is managing our storeās DVD section. This past Tuesday, I opened our new release boxes to find a number of copies of a movie called "The Trump Prophecy." I got physically ill. Not ill enough to go home, but I could feel my stomach turn. It wasnāt because I was holding in my hands a movie about Donald Trump, though, because I can make it through many a title about the Bedswerver-in-Chief. Thereās something worse: Associating support of him with Christian faith.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. Thatās where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while āthey will spend billions to keep this president in,ā āthe next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.ā Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylorās self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was Godās chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and youāre left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones āwasteā and āwaistā in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you werenāt a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, itās stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylorās false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you havenāt already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but itās mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. Thatās where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while āthey will spend billions to keep this president in,ā āthe next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.ā Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylorās self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was Godās chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and youāre left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones āwasteā and āwaistā in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you werenāt a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, itās stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylorās false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you havenāt already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but itās mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
As a child growing up in the 80ās the space race had already been around for decades. While I had heard the stories of my parents watching Neil Armstrong take his first steps on the moon, at the time I didnāt realize what it really took for those very first steps to occur. Considering we were living in a time full of space shuttles and satellites, it was easy to forget that only twenty years earlier we were still working on how to get a man into space.
First Man by Universal Pictures and directed by Damien Chazelle (La La Land / Whiplash) takes us on the incredible journey of Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) becoming the first man on the moon. The movie covers almost a decade of time, starting with the first scene of Neil Armstrong in a high-altitude test flight in his X-15 to of course the pivotal moment when he first steps foot on the moon. Itās a lot to pack into a film that only runs a bit over 2 hours (138 minutes to be precise) so even though it doesnāt go too deep into any particular event, it shows just enough of the journey to be very captivating.
The cinematography is both beautiful and a bit unsettling at the same time. Itās grainy and shaky, looking as though the film itself was shot in the same era that it portrays. There is a blend of new footage and actual footage that is practically impossible to distinguish from each other. There were many times throughout the film where I questioned whether the footage was actually pulled from original film, or simply filmed to appear that it was. Viewers who are sensitive to shaky camera sequences (where it looks like it is being filmed using an old 8mm handheld movie camera) or for those who prefer a crisper image of grainy footage might be slightly turned off, however I found the mix of both old and new incredibly interesting and it made all of the characters appear as if they were part of an archived documentary, instead of an entirely new film.
The video wasnāt the only mix that is present in the film as there is also a blend of old and new audio footage. They even used the original recording of the moon landing and seamlessly blended Ryan Goslingās voice in where Neil Armstrong would have originally been heard. The mix of audio footage was done so flawlessly throughout the film that you may even start to believe that that Ryan Gosling and Neil Armstrong are one-in-the-same person.
Since the movie is based on Neil Armstrong himself and not directly on the space race, a lot of other critical events are simply introduced and then gone in a flash. The time jumps in the movie can be a bit confusing as well. For example, there are scenes where his wife Janet (Claire Foy) is pregnant one minute and the very next minute she has a young son running around. Years pass by in minutes in this film, even for crucial events. Another example is when we are introduced to the young astronauts training for the Gemini flights and then a short time later they are ready to complete their missions. Considering these astronauts were an important part of history, it would have been nice to see a little bit more of their development. The best way to describe these hasty time jumps is that they play out a lot like reading a Wikipedia article, the key points are shown and described in detail, but any of the character development (outside of Neil and his wife) is largely missing. Thatās not to say that there arenāt other characters in the film that are important, they just arenāt the focus of the film.
If you are looking for a film that is action oriented like Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, then you may be a bit disappointed in First Man as it is definitely more like a documentary than a Hollywood blockbuster. If you are however interested in the history of Neil Armstrong and his trials and tribulations on his way to the first moon landing, then you will be in for an incredible journey. Even though First Man seems more at home on the History Channel than Netflix, thatās what makes it such an interesting and enjoyable movie. I thoroughly enjoyed First Man and itās excellent blend of history and personal storytelling makes it a great movie to see with the whole family.
First Man by Universal Pictures and directed by Damien Chazelle (La La Land / Whiplash) takes us on the incredible journey of Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) becoming the first man on the moon. The movie covers almost a decade of time, starting with the first scene of Neil Armstrong in a high-altitude test flight in his X-15 to of course the pivotal moment when he first steps foot on the moon. Itās a lot to pack into a film that only runs a bit over 2 hours (138 minutes to be precise) so even though it doesnāt go too deep into any particular event, it shows just enough of the journey to be very captivating.
The cinematography is both beautiful and a bit unsettling at the same time. Itās grainy and shaky, looking as though the film itself was shot in the same era that it portrays. There is a blend of new footage and actual footage that is practically impossible to distinguish from each other. There were many times throughout the film where I questioned whether the footage was actually pulled from original film, or simply filmed to appear that it was. Viewers who are sensitive to shaky camera sequences (where it looks like it is being filmed using an old 8mm handheld movie camera) or for those who prefer a crisper image of grainy footage might be slightly turned off, however I found the mix of both old and new incredibly interesting and it made all of the characters appear as if they were part of an archived documentary, instead of an entirely new film.
The video wasnāt the only mix that is present in the film as there is also a blend of old and new audio footage. They even used the original recording of the moon landing and seamlessly blended Ryan Goslingās voice in where Neil Armstrong would have originally been heard. The mix of audio footage was done so flawlessly throughout the film that you may even start to believe that that Ryan Gosling and Neil Armstrong are one-in-the-same person.
Since the movie is based on Neil Armstrong himself and not directly on the space race, a lot of other critical events are simply introduced and then gone in a flash. The time jumps in the movie can be a bit confusing as well. For example, there are scenes where his wife Janet (Claire Foy) is pregnant one minute and the very next minute she has a young son running around. Years pass by in minutes in this film, even for crucial events. Another example is when we are introduced to the young astronauts training for the Gemini flights and then a short time later they are ready to complete their missions. Considering these astronauts were an important part of history, it would have been nice to see a little bit more of their development. The best way to describe these hasty time jumps is that they play out a lot like reading a Wikipedia article, the key points are shown and described in detail, but any of the character development (outside of Neil and his wife) is largely missing. Thatās not to say that there arenāt other characters in the film that are important, they just arenāt the focus of the film.
If you are looking for a film that is action oriented like Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, then you may be a bit disappointed in First Man as it is definitely more like a documentary than a Hollywood blockbuster. If you are however interested in the history of Neil Armstrong and his trials and tribulations on his way to the first moon landing, then you will be in for an incredible journey. Even though First Man seems more at home on the History Channel than Netflix, thatās what makes it such an interesting and enjoyable movie. I thoroughly enjoyed First Man and itās excellent blend of history and personal storytelling makes it a great movie to see with the whole family.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated 7500 (2019) in Movies
Jun 28, 2020
A 'small film' that packs a big punch
I'm not sure if there is an "IQ" table of Hollywood stars, but I would reckon if there is then Joseph Gordon-Levitt would rate pretty highly. Whenever I see him interviewed he comes across as a highly articulate and intelligent bloke. And that intelligence filters through into his choices of movie role. If you look back at his filmography on IMDB the first thing you notice is that his output is pretty sparse and selective, and the next is that the projects he's done mostly deliver a pretty strong hit rate: "500 Days of Summer"; "Inception", "Looper", "The Dark Knight Rises"; "Don Jon".... the list is impressive.
Here he stars (and really stars) in a small German film. It only had a $5 million budget and in some ways it shows: the speaking cast totals about a dozen; the single location used is the cockpit (an Airbus A320 simulator somewhere? Or a set? The production design is so good, it's difficult to tell) ; and the "score" is so minimalistic (a solo piano piece over the end titles) that it doesn't even merit an IMDB music credit!
But in many ways this is a case of 'small is beautiful'. For this is an extremely tense and claustrophobic action picture.
The Plot: German Captain Michael Lutzmann (Carlo Kitzlinger) and American Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are about to pilot an Airbus A320 on a routine flight from Berlin to Paris. By coincidence, also on the flight is Tobias's partner and mother of his son, stewardess Gƶkce (Aylin Tezel). Shortly into the flight, three terrorists - Kenan (Murathan Muslu), Daniel (Paul Wollin) and youngster Vedat (Omid Memar) - take over the aircraft. Tobias issues a "7500" (hijack in progress) code. All that is protecting the injured pilots and the security of the 80 people on the flight is the cockpit door.
The film starts slowly, building atmosphere through the pre-flight chit-chat between the pilots and a leisurely take-off. I loved this development of character by Oscar-nominated shorts director Patrick Vollrath. But when the action starts, it starts with a bang and continues in truly tense and visceral style. There's a sense of creeping dread when you realise the terrorist's use of hostages to get the door open, and of who the hostages might be.
I note that one of the "thanks" for the film was director Paul Greengrass, who of course made the outstanding 9/11-themed "United 93" back in 2006. It would be fascinating to understand whether this was a "thank-you" for the inspiration the classic film gave Vollrath, or if there was some practical consultancy undertaken there.
Star of the show here is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who delivers a peerless performance as the pilot under extreme stress. Veering cyclically through terror, emotional breakdown and calm 'training-kicking-in' modes, it's a performance that is almost Oscar nomination-worthy in my book. He's on screen for virtually every shot of the film, and really earned his fee here. He makes for a very believable pilot.
I've read other comment that says the terrorists are rather 2-dimensional in their attempts to "do a 9/11". And to a degree I agree. A nice angle though is the relationship that develops between Tobias and young Vedat in the second half of the movie. There's a 'Stockholm Syndrome' vibe going on here, but this never quite gets resolved satisfactorily.
As such, unfortunately this 'back 9' never really quite lived up to the promise of the first 45 minutes for me. And as a single-location story that had nowhere else to go, the abrupt ending will not be to the liking of some I'm sure.
Not to be confused with the 2014 horror "Flight 7500", this is for once a B-movie that's real nail-biter. The movie doesn't pull its punches, and although there is little of the more graphic violence actually shown, the mind can fill in the gaps effectively which makes for some upsetting moments. Although it never quite lives up to its early promise at only 93 minutes it is strongly deserving of your attention. The movie is available for viewing via Amazon-Prime.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/28/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-7500-2020/ .)
Here he stars (and really stars) in a small German film. It only had a $5 million budget and in some ways it shows: the speaking cast totals about a dozen; the single location used is the cockpit (an Airbus A320 simulator somewhere? Or a set? The production design is so good, it's difficult to tell) ; and the "score" is so minimalistic (a solo piano piece over the end titles) that it doesn't even merit an IMDB music credit!
But in many ways this is a case of 'small is beautiful'. For this is an extremely tense and claustrophobic action picture.
The Plot: German Captain Michael Lutzmann (Carlo Kitzlinger) and American Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are about to pilot an Airbus A320 on a routine flight from Berlin to Paris. By coincidence, also on the flight is Tobias's partner and mother of his son, stewardess Gƶkce (Aylin Tezel). Shortly into the flight, three terrorists - Kenan (Murathan Muslu), Daniel (Paul Wollin) and youngster Vedat (Omid Memar) - take over the aircraft. Tobias issues a "7500" (hijack in progress) code. All that is protecting the injured pilots and the security of the 80 people on the flight is the cockpit door.
The film starts slowly, building atmosphere through the pre-flight chit-chat between the pilots and a leisurely take-off. I loved this development of character by Oscar-nominated shorts director Patrick Vollrath. But when the action starts, it starts with a bang and continues in truly tense and visceral style. There's a sense of creeping dread when you realise the terrorist's use of hostages to get the door open, and of who the hostages might be.
I note that one of the "thanks" for the film was director Paul Greengrass, who of course made the outstanding 9/11-themed "United 93" back in 2006. It would be fascinating to understand whether this was a "thank-you" for the inspiration the classic film gave Vollrath, or if there was some practical consultancy undertaken there.
Star of the show here is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who delivers a peerless performance as the pilot under extreme stress. Veering cyclically through terror, emotional breakdown and calm 'training-kicking-in' modes, it's a performance that is almost Oscar nomination-worthy in my book. He's on screen for virtually every shot of the film, and really earned his fee here. He makes for a very believable pilot.
I've read other comment that says the terrorists are rather 2-dimensional in their attempts to "do a 9/11". And to a degree I agree. A nice angle though is the relationship that develops between Tobias and young Vedat in the second half of the movie. There's a 'Stockholm Syndrome' vibe going on here, but this never quite gets resolved satisfactorily.
As such, unfortunately this 'back 9' never really quite lived up to the promise of the first 45 minutes for me. And as a single-location story that had nowhere else to go, the abrupt ending will not be to the liking of some I'm sure.
Not to be confused with the 2014 horror "Flight 7500", this is for once a B-movie that's real nail-biter. The movie doesn't pull its punches, and although there is little of the more graphic violence actually shown, the mind can fill in the gaps effectively which makes for some upsetting moments. Although it never quite lives up to its early promise at only 93 minutes it is strongly deserving of your attention. The movie is available for viewing via Amazon-Prime.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/28/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-7500-2020/ .)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
The heating in the screen for this was broken so I was sitting with my scarf wrapped up tight around my face... which came in very handy to soak up all the tears at that ending.
I can't tell you the last time I watched the original two movies, what I can tell you is that Toothless is a comedic genius and should probably just be allowed in every animated film... live action ones too... I might have to start a campaign for that.
This review has the potential to be a massive contradiction. I loved it, I'd totally see it again, but it isn't great for a couple of reasons. We've got a very bland bad guy who should be menacing but manages to stop somewhere at forgettable, then to top it off the storyline isn't great. I've seen a couple of people on Letterboxd refer to it as Thor: Ragnarok... and they're basically right.
Those things aside though it's still a funny and entertaining film. The animation is beautiful and the different landscapes they had to create came together as one world really well. Everything is also accompanied by a wonderful score, when they first come across the hidden world it's particularly dramatic.
When you look at the characters beyond our villain nothing has really changed. Ruffnut was very amusing and one of her scenes had me laughing and realising I have friends just like her. Everyone else was just there... I can't say any of them did anything you wouldn't have expected them to. The only thing that I did find amusing was Hiccup getting the Captain America treatment at the end of the film.
The dragons are by far the most amusing part of the whole film and Toothless practicing his dance with his shadow was super cute. I personally would have been happy just to have a whole movie of dragon "behind the scenes" pieces or one that focused on everything from the dragons' point of view. Something that was a little more goofing off than trying to be an actual story.
Hidden World has lots of flaws but that doesn't stop it from being a lighthearted and amusing movie. I'm going to miss Toothless, I might have to hit Netflix and binge the series they have on there to get my fill.
What you should do
It's a great family film, definitely see it. It doesn't tax the brain and it'll leave you feeling entertained.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have a little panda dragon that would be wonderful. They don't get too big, right?
I can't tell you the last time I watched the original two movies, what I can tell you is that Toothless is a comedic genius and should probably just be allowed in every animated film... live action ones too... I might have to start a campaign for that.
This review has the potential to be a massive contradiction. I loved it, I'd totally see it again, but it isn't great for a couple of reasons. We've got a very bland bad guy who should be menacing but manages to stop somewhere at forgettable, then to top it off the storyline isn't great. I've seen a couple of people on Letterboxd refer to it as Thor: Ragnarok... and they're basically right.
Those things aside though it's still a funny and entertaining film. The animation is beautiful and the different landscapes they had to create came together as one world really well. Everything is also accompanied by a wonderful score, when they first come across the hidden world it's particularly dramatic.
When you look at the characters beyond our villain nothing has really changed. Ruffnut was very amusing and one of her scenes had me laughing and realising I have friends just like her. Everyone else was just there... I can't say any of them did anything you wouldn't have expected them to. The only thing that I did find amusing was Hiccup getting the Captain America treatment at the end of the film.
The dragons are by far the most amusing part of the whole film and Toothless practicing his dance with his shadow was super cute. I personally would have been happy just to have a whole movie of dragon "behind the scenes" pieces or one that focused on everything from the dragons' point of view. Something that was a little more goofing off than trying to be an actual story.
Hidden World has lots of flaws but that doesn't stop it from being a lighthearted and amusing movie. I'm going to miss Toothless, I might have to hit Netflix and binge the series they have on there to get my fill.
What you should do
It's a great family film, definitely see it. It doesn't tax the brain and it'll leave you feeling entertained.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have a little panda dragon that would be wonderful. They don't get too big, right?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Monster Calls (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
āIāll. Be. Right. Here.ā
The worst thing about this movie is its title. The second worst thing about this movie is its trailer. Both will either a) put people off seeing it (it succeeded in that with my wife for example) or b) make people conclude it is a ānice holiday film to take the kids toā, which is also an horrendous mistake!
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (āThe Impossibleā) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last yearās āPeter Panā) plays Conor ā a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (Dāya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be āthe oneā but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasnāt enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmotherās pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this āmonsterā (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ātalesā, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which āmust be the truthā.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ātale animationsā being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in āHarry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1ā;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (āThe Imitation Gameā) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando VelƔzquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (āThe Revenantā, āThe Impossibleā) shines not just with Neesenās monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ānormalā surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and ā although a brave move by the Academy ā it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didnāt add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conorās Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from āThe Fantastic 4ā), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what āThe BFGā should have been but wasnāt. It draws on a number of potential influences including āMary Poppinsā/āSaving Mr Banksā and āETā. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to āthe Big Cā be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for youā¦.. or highly cathartic: as Iām not a psychiatrist, Iām really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since āGroundhog Dayā and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (āThe Impossibleā) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last yearās āPeter Panā) plays Conor ā a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (Dāya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be āthe oneā but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasnāt enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmotherās pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this āmonsterā (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ātalesā, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which āmust be the truthā.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ātale animationsā being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in āHarry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1ā;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (āThe Imitation Gameā) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando VelƔzquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (āThe Revenantā, āThe Impossibleā) shines not just with Neesenās monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ānormalā surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and ā although a brave move by the Academy ā it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didnāt add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conorās Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from āThe Fantastic 4ā), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what āThe BFGā should have been but wasnāt. It draws on a number of potential influences including āMary Poppinsā/āSaving Mr Banksā and āETā. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to āthe Big Cā be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for youā¦.. or highly cathartic: as Iām not a psychiatrist, Iām really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since āGroundhog Dayā and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
Miguel Covarrubias (143 KP) rated Doctor Sleep in Books
Apr 30, 2019
It was a very fitting sequel to "The Shining". As King notes, in the Author's note at the end of the book, he is a different man than the one who wrote about Jack Torrance. You can certainly tell. His story is well rounded and a complete character arch for not just the Torrance family but for the Author as well. The redemption of Jack being just a nod was more than enough for me as well. I loved the grace and love that King pours into his stories.
There was one scene that will continue to disturb me. It was Danny's secret, that he shared at the end of the book, and lived through at the beginning. That scene with the toddler just... it really upset me. It will haunt me as it haunted Danny. I think it's because I am a father of a toddler myself, and any harm done to children kills my soul a bit.
The themes of becoming better than your past are beautiful. I love King's take on this as he is also a man that has overcome his past and become better than he was. The idea of purpose is one I would argue with, but that is something that I'm struggling with myself. I do love the imagery that is borrowed from Madeleine L'Engle about collecting ages that Danny references. We are always that age at some level, and will always be. There will always be that part of us that was our past, but we can overcome it and be better than we were. The trauma in Danny's past made him a better person, rather than letting it weigh him down for his entire life. It almost did.
I almost didn't read this one, but I'm very glad that I did.
I'm also a fan of the little dig that King takes at Kubrick in his Author's note about the movie version, the mini-series was a better interpretation.
There was one scene that will continue to disturb me. It was Danny's secret, that he shared at the end of the book, and lived through at the beginning. That scene with the toddler just... it really upset me. It will haunt me as it haunted Danny. I think it's because I am a father of a toddler myself, and any harm done to children kills my soul a bit.
The themes of becoming better than your past are beautiful. I love King's take on this as he is also a man that has overcome his past and become better than he was. The idea of purpose is one I would argue with, but that is something that I'm struggling with myself. I do love the imagery that is borrowed from Madeleine L'Engle about collecting ages that Danny references. We are always that age at some level, and will always be. There will always be that part of us that was our past, but we can overcome it and be better than we were. The trauma in Danny's past made him a better person, rather than letting it weigh him down for his entire life. It almost did.
I almost didn't read this one, but I'm very glad that I did.
I'm also a fan of the little dig that King takes at Kubrick in his Author's note about the movie version, the mini-series was a better interpretation.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Worms Battlegrounds in Video Games
Mar 6, 2018
Funny and nostalgic... for a short period
Worms for me is a game I loved when I was younger, so when I found out they'd updated it for the PS4, I forced my other half to fork out a grand total of Ā£4 to buy it for us despite protesting he hated it. Neither of us were disappointed.
I can't review the single player mode as it doesn't appeal in the slightest, and let's face it, the only reason you play Worms is to unleash tactical warfare against your nearest and dearest, causing numerous arguments in the process. And on this it doesn't disappoint. The gameplay is exactly how I remember, right down to the available weapons and worm characteristics. The movie trailer voiceover option constantly has me in hysterics.
The main fun of this game comes either from killing your opponents in decidedly wicked ways, or from completely messing up your tactics and killing yourself instead. The problem with this is, it gets old very quickly. This isn't a game you can play all day. This is a game you can play for a few rounds and then come back to in a week or so. It also has a few glitches which do get irritating after a while. The automatic camera panning is terrible; you have to force it to pan back to your character after selecting a target and most of the time you never know how much damage you do to an opponent as the camera has moved off elsewhere instead of staying on them. There's also the fact that it gives you multiple game/weapon options, but you have no clue from the startup screen what weapons this includes until you start the round and realise they're all the rubbish ones...
In short, this is still a really fun game as long as you keep it brief and can ignore some of the glitches.
I can't review the single player mode as it doesn't appeal in the slightest, and let's face it, the only reason you play Worms is to unleash tactical warfare against your nearest and dearest, causing numerous arguments in the process. And on this it doesn't disappoint. The gameplay is exactly how I remember, right down to the available weapons and worm characteristics. The movie trailer voiceover option constantly has me in hysterics.
The main fun of this game comes either from killing your opponents in decidedly wicked ways, or from completely messing up your tactics and killing yourself instead. The problem with this is, it gets old very quickly. This isn't a game you can play all day. This is a game you can play for a few rounds and then come back to in a week or so. It also has a few glitches which do get irritating after a while. The automatic camera panning is terrible; you have to force it to pan back to your character after selecting a target and most of the time you never know how much damage you do to an opponent as the camera has moved off elsewhere instead of staying on them. There's also the fact that it gives you multiple game/weapon options, but you have no clue from the startup screen what weapons this includes until you start the round and realise they're all the rubbish ones...
In short, this is still a really fun game as long as you keep it brief and can ignore some of the glitches.