Search
Search results
Zach Smith (62 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Jul 10, 2019
What a pile of cinamatic shit!
Contains spoilers, click to show
I always check the contains spoilers because I might make mention of something that happen that would annoy some twat that reads reviews before seeing the movie. The original actors warned these assholes not to do this and they did, so I love how they get rewarded over probably 50 million or more because it was such a wash, trying to catch possible deadpool fans by rating it R so they can show headshots and demons rip apart humans. It felt pointless, we also have a kungfu expert that happend to transform into a werecheetah, WTF kind of stuppid shit is that? This moovie drags on forever even dragging King Arthurs legacy through shit as well. It has ok special effects that appear to be directly stolen from the mind of Del Toro, they just didnt want to pay him I guess. Just shameful and dreadful. Snorefactor of 1/0.
Awix (3310 KP) rated King Kong (1933) in Movies
May 21, 2020
Landmark pulp adventure provides everything you want from a monster movie and almost nothing you don't want. Surely everyone knows the plot of one of the most famous films of all time? Blonde, island, gorilla, tall building, biplanes.
The reason King Kong has endured and been endlessly remade is simply because there's barely a duff bit in it (although Bruce Cabot comes close as the juvenile lead): even the bit with them getting to the island, which could be filler, is smartly filled with brazen foreshadowing of the rest of the plot. From then on it's rampaging and dinosaur fights all the way. Slightly eccentrically structured, in that the whole New York sequence almost feels like an afterthought to the rescue of Fay Wray on the island itself. One also wonders if there was an actual decision to make Kong so sympathetic at the climax, or whether this was a happy accident: if Kong was really intended to somehow be an anti-hero, it's odd that his chief tormentor not only survives but goes on to star in the rush-job sequel. Nevertheless, a groundbreaking classic and the wellspring of an entire genre.
The reason King Kong has endured and been endlessly remade is simply because there's barely a duff bit in it (although Bruce Cabot comes close as the juvenile lead): even the bit with them getting to the island, which could be filler, is smartly filled with brazen foreshadowing of the rest of the plot. From then on it's rampaging and dinosaur fights all the way. Slightly eccentrically structured, in that the whole New York sequence almost feels like an afterthought to the rescue of Fay Wray on the island itself. One also wonders if there was an actual decision to make Kong so sympathetic at the climax, or whether this was a happy accident: if Kong was really intended to somehow be an anti-hero, it's odd that his chief tormentor not only survives but goes on to star in the rush-job sequel. Nevertheless, a groundbreaking classic and the wellspring of an entire genre.
Selected Stories
Book
Selected Stories of Philip K. Dick contains twenty-one of Dick's most dazzling and resonant stories,...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated I Kissed a Girl in Books
Aug 12, 2021
A fun movie set romance
Noa Birnbaum's dream is to work in the movies: in horror special effects and makeup. She finally gets a chance to work on a real movie (one step closer to joining the union), but it means dropping out of school, where she's earning her theater degree. Her parents won't be pleased. On the set, she's face to face with actress Lilah Silver, whom Noa has had a crush on for ages. Lilah has her own dreams, to move beyond B-list horror films and into true stardom. This starring role as the "final girl" could be her opportunity. When she meets openly out Noa, Lilah may finally have a chance to admit to her own bisexuality. But a relationship could have its own problems for both Lilah and Noa.
"Noa'd thrown away everything else in her life for this job. And now she was seriously considering throwing the job away for a chance at a girl? Stupid beyond words."
This is a cute story whose strength comes across in its representation--queer characters covering bi, trans, lesbian and more. There's also some excellent Jewish representation, as both Noa and Lilah bond over their religious beliefs. As a member of the LGBTQIA community, I love seeing stories that reflect myself and my friends. Watching Lilah grapple with her bisexuality and coming out and seeing Noa hang out with her friends, being openly out and accepted. These are still stories and characters we do not get to see and read about regularly. Even better, it seems like I read a lot of queer YA books, not a lot where the characters are adults (although they might not always act like it in this story, ha). It was fun and refreshing.
"Special effects artist had never been on the list of things Good Jewish Girls Did."
For me, this book was a little long. It could have been a bit shorter and would have felt more snappy. A lot of the focus in this story is on miscommunication, which is a pet peeve of mine. I just can't handle when so much of the plot could be avoided if the characters just spoke openly to one another. It's also not entirely clear why Noa crushes so much on Lilah, to the point that it seems that she can't rationalize clearly. A lot of this inability to communicate or think clearly leads to some back and forth storylines, so it seems like as if the plot zigs and zags. Up and down. Will Noa go for a relationship with Lilah or keep her job? Is Lilah willing to risk her career for her sexuality? Again, if things had been just a bit shorter, we probably could have skipped a bit of this.
Still, this is a fun story. While Lilah and Noa can be frustrating sometimes, they are engaging characters. The horror film set adds an interesting level to the book (there's another plot line involving Lilah and threats to her safety). It's a little long, but I appreciated all the queer and Jewish rep. 3+ stars.
I received a copy of this book from Sourcebooks Casablanca and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. It releases 8/3/2021.
"Noa'd thrown away everything else in her life for this job. And now she was seriously considering throwing the job away for a chance at a girl? Stupid beyond words."
This is a cute story whose strength comes across in its representation--queer characters covering bi, trans, lesbian and more. There's also some excellent Jewish representation, as both Noa and Lilah bond over their religious beliefs. As a member of the LGBTQIA community, I love seeing stories that reflect myself and my friends. Watching Lilah grapple with her bisexuality and coming out and seeing Noa hang out with her friends, being openly out and accepted. These are still stories and characters we do not get to see and read about regularly. Even better, it seems like I read a lot of queer YA books, not a lot where the characters are adults (although they might not always act like it in this story, ha). It was fun and refreshing.
"Special effects artist had never been on the list of things Good Jewish Girls Did."
For me, this book was a little long. It could have been a bit shorter and would have felt more snappy. A lot of the focus in this story is on miscommunication, which is a pet peeve of mine. I just can't handle when so much of the plot could be avoided if the characters just spoke openly to one another. It's also not entirely clear why Noa crushes so much on Lilah, to the point that it seems that she can't rationalize clearly. A lot of this inability to communicate or think clearly leads to some back and forth storylines, so it seems like as if the plot zigs and zags. Up and down. Will Noa go for a relationship with Lilah or keep her job? Is Lilah willing to risk her career for her sexuality? Again, if things had been just a bit shorter, we probably could have skipped a bit of this.
Still, this is a fun story. While Lilah and Noa can be frustrating sometimes, they are engaging characters. The horror film set adds an interesting level to the book (there's another plot line involving Lilah and threats to her safety). It's a little long, but I appreciated all the queer and Jewish rep. 3+ stars.
I received a copy of this book from Sourcebooks Casablanca and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. It releases 8/3/2021.
Erika (17789 KP) rated Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway (2021) in Movies
Jun 15, 2021
Full disclosure, I absolutely loved the first Peter Rabbit film. I found it completely hilarious and cackled numerous times. The sequel did not make me laugh.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
I typically don’t watch straight-up kid movies anymore, because they’re not funny, and they are as annoying as the kids in the audience. This movie completely reminded me of that.
The film begins with the wedding of Bea and Thomas, the rabbits and other members of McGregor’s Garden are all present. The animals are mixed in with the humans, and it looked very odd. I can’t figure out why. Bea and Thomas enter married bliss (?), running a shop in town, and tending the garden. Bea’s first Peter Rabbit book has been published by Thomas himself. Bea receives an offer from a publisher, Nigel Basil-Jones, played by David Oyelowo, to have her book republished so it can reach a wider audience. Bea begins to compromise her integrity to please Nigel and make the rabbits hipper to boost sales. Meanwhile, Peter embraces his bad boy/ mischievous image and makes friends with this super creepy rabbit from the city, participating in food heists.
The two main plotlines really didn’t make sense together and seemed to only be related because they were both about family. Yawn.
James Corden, who I can tolerate most of the time, was so completely annoying. His performance killed any motivation I had to see a possible third movie. This movie was just dumb, but I guess it probably entertained children.
There were a few positives. Oyelowo was hilarious, and one of the best parts of the film. He is the only reason I’m giving this film two-stars His comedy skills are on point and his interactions with Domhnall Gleeson were the best source of adult laughs. I also loved the voice acting of Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. Though, I was a little bummed that Daisy Ridley did not return as Cottontail.
The recent marketing stated, “In Theaters. Finally”. I’m not sure this film should have been released in theaters, they should have released it on VOD at Easter-time either in 2020, or 2021.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
Childs Play is a strange & maybe unnecessary reboot of a cult classic series of films that are still going strong. That being said this new film does manage to hold its own as a solo slasher & throws in enough new ideas to keep things feeling fresh & fun while most importantly of all staying faithful to the original formula. Lets get one thing out the way here the doll design of chucky in this film is horrendous & down right hideous looking (not in a good way) I get they needed to change the way he looked slightly but this doll side on especially has one ugly & bulky side profile. Its not so bad when he's face on or half shadowed in darkness & there are some genuinely creepy scenes involving the glowing eyes. Mark Hamill is the perfect choice voice wise & really does bring life, comedy & creepiness to an other wise soulless character. Plot is quite basic & characters are also fairly paint by numbers too but the cast do bring the movie to life with believable acting & fun interactions with each other. Atmosphere is built up nicely especially in the first half as its tense, unnerving & slowly paced making the viewer earn its kills & scares. These a big sense of nostalgia here too & the film does over all feel like it was made in the 80s despite its squeaky clean look at times. References, nods & inspirations litter the film too & genuinely feel clever rather than like a cheap 'remember this'. Delivering on gore this instalment has some nasty death scenes & the finally is deliciously over the top. I did however much prefer the first half over the second half as I found the slower pacing way more tense & creepy especially seeing this doll gradually learn to kill with almost a sense of naivety, innocence & good intention to it. You could also argue the creation of the doll is our fault as consumers & our desire to want more/connect more. Chucky could also be metaphor for how soulless & desensitized we have become too. Childs Play doesnt need to exist at all but manages to stand on its own two feet as a ridiculous, creepy, devilishly funny & extremely entertaining just dont expect anything ground breaking or intelligent & you will be sure to have a blast Buddi.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Freeheld (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Based on a true story about Detective Lauren Hester (Julianne Moore) who is dying of cancer and her life-partner Stacie Andree (Ellen Page, who “came out” herself last year), and their fight for their civil rights against the “Freeholders Committee” in Ocean City, NJ.
After more than 20 years of being on the force and highly decorated, Lauren Hester is seeking to give her pension to her domestic partner just like any straight married county employee has been able to do. The Freeholders, are a committee who governs the county, decided that Hester’s pension would not be given to Andree because they are lesbians and the fight begins. They are contacted by a gay rights activist, Steve Goldstein (Steve Carell), who with the help of Hester’s detective partner Dane Wells (Michael Shannon), try to get the Freeholders to change their opinion. Only with help from the community and police force, who are rallied by Goldstein and Wells,will anything be changed.
Right from the start the movie grabs hold of the viewer, and keeps them engrossed in their struggle to the end. Being so close to being a biography I was surprised at how well it was done and my interest was kept throughout. It is not just an account of a gay couple, more a depiction of a battle for everyone’s civil rights. Freeheld skillfully depicts the struggles of gay professionals to keep their identity a secret from society while still being successful in their field, having a fulfilling relationship and how society discriminated LGBTQ domestic partnerships which became fuel for the Marriage Equality movement.
The actors and director (Peter Sollett) keep the pace fluid and easy to follow without losing any of the important details of their lives or bogging it down with the legalities of the fight. The screenplay could easily have turned this into an exploitation just for the tear-jerking factor, but instead keep it realistic, even adding a bit of humor alleviate the dreariness the story, just like most people will do when facing the death of a loved one. I found Freeheld to be somewhat upbeat, even in the darkest scenes dealing with the misuse of the laws due to bigotry and how close to reality Moore simulates a person dying of cancer, instead turning it into another gloom and doom cancer or civil rights movie. Having been through it myself, I could fully connect with Page’s depiction how it feels to watch loved one dying of cancer and I know so many others will also.
I honestly loved Freeheld, I would suggest to anyone who prefers a matter of fact movie mixed with humor, compassion, and heartbreak that ends with you feeling like you were fully immersed in their life and closure with the finale.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/09/freeheld/
After more than 20 years of being on the force and highly decorated, Lauren Hester is seeking to give her pension to her domestic partner just like any straight married county employee has been able to do. The Freeholders, are a committee who governs the county, decided that Hester’s pension would not be given to Andree because they are lesbians and the fight begins. They are contacted by a gay rights activist, Steve Goldstein (Steve Carell), who with the help of Hester’s detective partner Dane Wells (Michael Shannon), try to get the Freeholders to change their opinion. Only with help from the community and police force, who are rallied by Goldstein and Wells,will anything be changed.
Right from the start the movie grabs hold of the viewer, and keeps them engrossed in their struggle to the end. Being so close to being a biography I was surprised at how well it was done and my interest was kept throughout. It is not just an account of a gay couple, more a depiction of a battle for everyone’s civil rights. Freeheld skillfully depicts the struggles of gay professionals to keep their identity a secret from society while still being successful in their field, having a fulfilling relationship and how society discriminated LGBTQ domestic partnerships which became fuel for the Marriage Equality movement.
The actors and director (Peter Sollett) keep the pace fluid and easy to follow without losing any of the important details of their lives or bogging it down with the legalities of the fight. The screenplay could easily have turned this into an exploitation just for the tear-jerking factor, but instead keep it realistic, even adding a bit of humor alleviate the dreariness the story, just like most people will do when facing the death of a loved one. I found Freeheld to be somewhat upbeat, even in the darkest scenes dealing with the misuse of the laws due to bigotry and how close to reality Moore simulates a person dying of cancer, instead turning it into another gloom and doom cancer or civil rights movie. Having been through it myself, I could fully connect with Page’s depiction how it feels to watch loved one dying of cancer and I know so many others will also.
I honestly loved Freeheld, I would suggest to anyone who prefers a matter of fact movie mixed with humor, compassion, and heartbreak that ends with you feeling like you were fully immersed in their life and closure with the finale.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/09/freeheld/
Erika (17789 KP) rated Mission: Impossible (1996) in Movies
May 13, 2018
Disclaimer: I hadn't seen this movie prior to watching it this evening. Maybe I saw pieces of it at some point, but not all of it. The only MI film I'd watched (in full) prior to this was the last one.
This film was predictable to me, though, to be fair, a lot of films have copied it, so I'm sure if I'd have seen it when it initially came out, I may have been surprised.
Some of the action scenes weren't completely believable, and the visual fx were very strange looking on bluray. Paramount should probably get around to remastering these here pretty soon.
The one scene I was impressed with was the whole hanging in the safe in Langley. It's also the scene that's been mimicked in other films the most.
This film was predictable to me, though, to be fair, a lot of films have copied it, so I'm sure if I'd have seen it when it initially came out, I may have been surprised.
Some of the action scenes weren't completely believable, and the visual fx were very strange looking on bluray. Paramount should probably get around to remastering these here pretty soon.
The one scene I was impressed with was the whole hanging in the safe in Langley. It's also the scene that's been mimicked in other films the most.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Raven (1963) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018 (Updated Feb 9, 2018)
Vincent Price Broods Over His Dead Wife's Portrait (Yet Again)
Roger Corman's cycle of Poe-inspired movies goes into full-on comedy mode with this tale of squabbling magicians (played by Vincent Price, Peter Lorre and Boris Karloff). It is, obviously, only very loosely inspired by Poe's poem, but then you can only stretch 108 lines of verse so far.
The fun is in the performances, with the veteran cast members competing to ham it up more extravagantly. Also knocking about the lower reaches of the cast list is Jack Nicholson, really showing not much sign of the talent that would earn him so many Oscar nominations in later years.
Knockabout stuff, but well played and often very funny. Not actually much of a horror movie, though, certainly by modern standards.
The fun is in the performances, with the veteran cast members competing to ham it up more extravagantly. Also knocking about the lower reaches of the cast list is Jack Nicholson, really showing not much sign of the talent that would earn him so many Oscar nominations in later years.
Knockabout stuff, but well played and often very funny. Not actually much of a horror movie, though, certainly by modern standards.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Murder on the Orient Express is a mystery drama directed by, and starring, Kenneth Branagh and is based on the 1934 Agatha Christie novel of the same name. The film brings in a spectacular cast alongside Branagh, including Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Josh Gad, Michelle Pfeiffer and Daisy Ridley. Also part of the main cast, while not well known, but equally as talented, are Tom Bateman, Derek Jacobi, Leslie Odom Jr. and Lucy Boynton.
For those unfamiliar with the novel, or the 1974 and 2001 adaptations, Murder tells the story of, well… a murder. On a train. It’s really a lot more than that. Branagh portrays Hercule Poirot, a famed Belgian detective who is looking forward to some time off. But during his travels, a most unfortunate thing happens. Two things actually. Someone is murdered aboard the train he is traveling on, the Orient Express (naturally). And the murderer would’ve gotten away free and clear had storm not caused an avalanche, which thanks to a derailed engine, caused the train to become stuck and the body to be discovered. Poirot’s friend, Bouc (Bateman), runs the train and requested that Poirot solve the mystery before the police arrive in fear of someone innocent being accused, and to save himself from a heyday with his father. Can Poirot find out who is the killer between the star-studded cast?
I’ve read the novel. Seen both adaptations. This film blows those earlier adaptations out of the water. There is no contest here. Now clearly, nothing can beat the book. But Murder is about as great a film you can get in the murky land of Hollywood these days. As mentioned, Branagh directed and starred in the film, which he shot on 65 mm. The last time he did this was with Hamlet in 1996. It looked good then, and it looks even better now. With eye-popping visuals throughout the entirety of the film, and a masterful soundtrack that seamlessly blended with the tones and themes of each scene, the film is a modern masterpiece.
It wasn’t without its faults. (Most) every film has them. And there are a lot of people who are upset with Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot, particularly the representation of his eccentric facial hair. I am not one of those people. I believe it, along with other amazing moments, lent a bit of humor to the movie to break up what should otherwise be, and is, a serious whodunit mystery. Also, I felt they changed a few things in the adaptation that didn’t necessarily need to be changed.
I found it hard to sit and write about the film though. Given the nature of a great mystery, I can’t tell you too much about it without risk of giving out crucial details to the plot and outcome. So I will leave you with this, boys, girls, and everything in between and beyond… with a great and talented cast (bravo to Michelle Pfeiffer in particular) who nailed home their characters, to great visuals, and a great score, this movie is definitely one you want to catch.
For those unfamiliar with the novel, or the 1974 and 2001 adaptations, Murder tells the story of, well… a murder. On a train. It’s really a lot more than that. Branagh portrays Hercule Poirot, a famed Belgian detective who is looking forward to some time off. But during his travels, a most unfortunate thing happens. Two things actually. Someone is murdered aboard the train he is traveling on, the Orient Express (naturally). And the murderer would’ve gotten away free and clear had storm not caused an avalanche, which thanks to a derailed engine, caused the train to become stuck and the body to be discovered. Poirot’s friend, Bouc (Bateman), runs the train and requested that Poirot solve the mystery before the police arrive in fear of someone innocent being accused, and to save himself from a heyday with his father. Can Poirot find out who is the killer between the star-studded cast?
I’ve read the novel. Seen both adaptations. This film blows those earlier adaptations out of the water. There is no contest here. Now clearly, nothing can beat the book. But Murder is about as great a film you can get in the murky land of Hollywood these days. As mentioned, Branagh directed and starred in the film, which he shot on 65 mm. The last time he did this was with Hamlet in 1996. It looked good then, and it looks even better now. With eye-popping visuals throughout the entirety of the film, and a masterful soundtrack that seamlessly blended with the tones and themes of each scene, the film is a modern masterpiece.
It wasn’t without its faults. (Most) every film has them. And there are a lot of people who are upset with Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot, particularly the representation of his eccentric facial hair. I am not one of those people. I believe it, along with other amazing moments, lent a bit of humor to the movie to break up what should otherwise be, and is, a serious whodunit mystery. Also, I felt they changed a few things in the adaptation that didn’t necessarily need to be changed.
I found it hard to sit and write about the film though. Given the nature of a great mystery, I can’t tell you too much about it without risk of giving out crucial details to the plot and outcome. So I will leave you with this, boys, girls, and everything in between and beyond… with a great and talented cast (bravo to Michelle Pfeiffer in particular) who nailed home their characters, to great visuals, and a great score, this movie is definitely one you want to catch.