Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Sep 24, 2020 (Updated Sep 24, 2020)
The third and final entry in the Sam Raimi trilogy of Spider-Man films is arguably the most well known, unfortunately for all the wrong reasons, and it's a real shame as there are flashes of greatness, but the finished product is a hot mess.
One of the main issues is of course the three big villains all battling for screentime. Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) is a great villain to add to the series, but his story is executed poorly, and includes a dumb retcon in a half arsed attempt to link him to the original film. It's just unnecessary and soils something that could have been good. And then there's Venom - A huge fan favourite villain who Sam Raimi apparently doesn't like, and it's evident. Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) is rushed into the narrative, and his reasons for hating Peter Parker feel forced as a result. Venoms inclusion feels a bit tacked on, and unfortunately reaks of studio meddling.
Other than that, there's also the issue of over confidence - the assumption that an audience wants to watch an edgy version of Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker swanning and dancing down a street is bold to say the least - I could even forgive the infamous scene if it wasn't immediately followed up with a second dance number in a jazz bar. I get that it's designed to portray the symbiote suits hold over Peter and his deteriorating character attributes, buts it's a massive shitty swing and a miss (much like the whole movie in general) that makes me want to scream.
It's not all bad though. All of the cast, new and familiar, are good. I think Bryce Dallas Howard is a great Gwen Stacy. It has some decent set pieces as well - the scene where Sandman is discovering his new powers is brilliant, as is the fight between him and black suit Spider-Man in the underground. I also quite enjoy the final showdown when we (finally) get to see Venom properly.
It's not enough though, and Spider-Man 3 ultimately is a flawed if ambitious comic book sequel.
One of the main issues is of course the three big villains all battling for screentime. Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) is a great villain to add to the series, but his story is executed poorly, and includes a dumb retcon in a half arsed attempt to link him to the original film. It's just unnecessary and soils something that could have been good. And then there's Venom - A huge fan favourite villain who Sam Raimi apparently doesn't like, and it's evident. Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) is rushed into the narrative, and his reasons for hating Peter Parker feel forced as a result. Venoms inclusion feels a bit tacked on, and unfortunately reaks of studio meddling.
Other than that, there's also the issue of over confidence - the assumption that an audience wants to watch an edgy version of Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker swanning and dancing down a street is bold to say the least - I could even forgive the infamous scene if it wasn't immediately followed up with a second dance number in a jazz bar. I get that it's designed to portray the symbiote suits hold over Peter and his deteriorating character attributes, buts it's a massive shitty swing and a miss (much like the whole movie in general) that makes me want to scream.
It's not all bad though. All of the cast, new and familiar, are good. I think Bryce Dallas Howard is a great Gwen Stacy. It has some decent set pieces as well - the scene where Sandman is discovering his new powers is brilliant, as is the fight between him and black suit Spider-Man in the underground. I also quite enjoy the final showdown when we (finally) get to see Venom properly.
It's not enough though, and Spider-Man 3 ultimately is a flawed if ambitious comic book sequel.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
As a child growing up in the 80’s 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 didn’t 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. It’s a lot to pack into a film that only runs a bit over 2 hours (138 minutes to be precise) so even though it doesn’t 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. It’s 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 wasn’t 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 Gosling’s 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. That’s not to say that there aren’t other characters in the film that are important, they just aren’t 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, that’s what makes it such an interesting and enjoyable movie. I thoroughly enjoyed First Man and it’s 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. It’s a lot to pack into a film that only runs a bit over 2 hours (138 minutes to be precise) so even though it doesn’t 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. It’s 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 wasn’t 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 Gosling’s 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. That’s not to say that there aren’t other characters in the film that are important, they just aren’t 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, that’s what makes it such an interesting and enjoyable movie. I thoroughly enjoyed First Man and it’s 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 Gökce (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 Gökce (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
“I’ll. Be. Right. Here.”
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 ‘nice holiday film to take the kids to’, 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 (“The Impossible”) 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 year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – 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 (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t 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 grandmother’s 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 “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
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 ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
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 (“The Imitation Game”) 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 Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ 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 – although a brave move by the Academy – 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 didn’t 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 Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), 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 “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. 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 “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m 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 “Groundhog Day” 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 (“The Impossible”) 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 year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – 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 (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t 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 grandmother’s 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 “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
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 ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
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 (“The Imitation Game”) 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 Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ 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 – although a brave move by the Academy – 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 didn’t 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 Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), 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 “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. 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 “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m 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 “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Lightning Thief in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I decided to read this partly because I had just seen the movie and partly because I heard that it was a good series for fans of the Harry Potter series. Well, in regards to the movie, it's appalling how much the producers changed the book's plot to make the movie. If they make a second movie, I likely will not be interested, as I much more prefer the book's plot. In regards to the book's similarities to Harry Potter, they are vast, but really, who wouldn't aim to write something as popular and complex as the Harry Potter series? J.K. Rowling owns a castle! So, on to the actual book.
Years ago I thought that writing a fantasy series that uses Greek mythology would be a great idea, so I was excited when I heard of the Percy Jackson series. I love the modernized spin on the various good and bad characters, bringing them to life in both creative and believeable ways, such as Ares on a Harley and "Mr." Charon wearing Italian suits. The "Gods" of mythology at times seemed more like immature teenagers or work-aholic parents, with as much flaws as any normal human, and I really appreciated that they were differentiated from The GOD early on, and their place in the known universe was explained in the context of Percy's world. I especially like the scene of Hephaestus' trap that Percy and Annabeth get caught in. How the "normal" humans explained away the activities of the mythological characters was probably the most creative of the whole text, and at times rather humorous. It actually makes me wonder how much of what I see everyday is only a cover for what is really happening in the spiritual realm.
The only element that really bugged me about the text was how Percy changed from this moody, victimized pre-teen to a rather mature young man with almost no transition - emotional or otherwise. It almost felt like Percy possessed two different personalities that shared the same body. While Percy often says that he did not want to be the son of Poseidon, I found evidence of inner termoil strangely absent throughout the text. I also felt that there were smaller issues that could have been more detailed and developed, such as the characters of Grover and Annabeth. I will be continuing the series with The Sea of Monsters (Percy Jackson and the Olympians, Book 2) in the near future.
Years ago I thought that writing a fantasy series that uses Greek mythology would be a great idea, so I was excited when I heard of the Percy Jackson series. I love the modernized spin on the various good and bad characters, bringing them to life in both creative and believeable ways, such as Ares on a Harley and "Mr." Charon wearing Italian suits. The "Gods" of mythology at times seemed more like immature teenagers or work-aholic parents, with as much flaws as any normal human, and I really appreciated that they were differentiated from The GOD early on, and their place in the known universe was explained in the context of Percy's world. I especially like the scene of Hephaestus' trap that Percy and Annabeth get caught in. How the "normal" humans explained away the activities of the mythological characters was probably the most creative of the whole text, and at times rather humorous. It actually makes me wonder how much of what I see everyday is only a cover for what is really happening in the spiritual realm.
The only element that really bugged me about the text was how Percy changed from this moody, victimized pre-teen to a rather mature young man with almost no transition - emotional or otherwise. It almost felt like Percy possessed two different personalities that shared the same body. While Percy often says that he did not want to be the son of Poseidon, I found evidence of inner termoil strangely absent throughout the text. I also felt that there were smaller issues that could have been more detailed and developed, such as the characters of Grover and Annabeth. I will be continuing the series with The Sea of Monsters (Percy Jackson and the Olympians, Book 2) in the near future.
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 £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.
BookwormLea (3034 KP) rated Toy Story 3 (2010) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's hard to believe this movie came out 9 years ago.... yet I know I've seen it enough to count those years. It's not my favourite Toy Story, mainly because I loved the first one so much, but it's by far the most influential one. It encouraged me to get rid of some of my toys and give them to charity stores for other children to use. Better home for them. I do however have a Strawberry scented Lotso of my own who I'm still not convinced isn't evil but he sure smells good!
Also like to add... Barbie and Ken? Adorable!!!!
And so glad Bonny was given the toys... they will love her! (See Toy Story 4)
Also like to add... Barbie and Ken? Adorable!!!!
And so glad Bonny was given the toys... they will love her! (See Toy Story 4)
