Search
Search results
Film Fatales: Women in Espionage Films and Television, 1962-1973
Book
Sean Connery began the sixties spy movie boom playing James Bond in Dr. No and From Russia with...
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘥. I want to love Guy Ritchie returning to his gangster roots so badly, but I'm pretty sure I've seen this exact Ritchie movie before... multiple times... done less and less well with almost each subsequent attempt. I mean at least 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘯 𝘍𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘜.𝘕.𝘊.𝘓.𝘌. had style, at least 𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘳: 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥 had energy, at least 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘳 had nuance, and at least 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘙𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢 had personality. I don't know whether the dire restraint he shows here is an attempt at showing maturity or a lack of caring towards this story (which even at best feels like a first draft) but it plays out like the latter. A bare-bones Ritchie premise mired with flatness and unoriginality which decides it wants to be 𝘓𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘺 𝘕𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘚𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘯 in all its convoluted bullshit at the last second. Intermittently has its moments when it finally decides to put some much needed pep in its step, and overall it's at least watchable - sometimes even tricking you into thinking it might be alright - but by Lord if this just had some fun it'd be ten times better even in spite of the been-there-done-that script. Forgets it ever existed quicker than you will, even the characters are dull. Also holy shit this is easily the worst dialogue of his career.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019 (Updated Aug 26, 2019)
Spielberg and Lucas' wonderful adventure shows you can ignore most of the accepted rules of screenwriting (the script here has some iffy plot devices, peculiar character moments, and the most literal deus ex machina ending in cinema history) and still end up with a virtually perfect movie. You can see how it appeals to the same desire for good-vs-evil escapism as Lucas' most famous creation, but there is an obvious love for the glamour and romance of Golden Age Hollywood here too, and a mysticism that in many way makes it the culmination of all the movies about faith Lucas and Spielberg made in the late 1970s (outside of horror films and biblical epics, this is one of the few mainstream movies predicated on the existence of God).
On one level this is essentially a succession of one set-piece after another, but what set-pieces they are - most movies would be happy to have one sequence like the one in the snake pit, or the plane fight, or the truck chase, and Spielberg cheerfully rattles them off without really pausing for breath. The film is also careful to take its time to establish character and humour, too. This is one of those movies where you can't help feeling that any changes would only end up spoiling it.
On one level this is essentially a succession of one set-piece after another, but what set-pieces they are - most movies would be happy to have one sequence like the one in the snake pit, or the plane fight, or the truck chase, and Spielberg cheerfully rattles them off without really pausing for breath. The film is also careful to take its time to establish character and humour, too. This is one of those movies where you can't help feeling that any changes would only end up spoiling it.
I Can Animate
Photo & Video and Education
App
Create stunning and exciting animation movies quickly and easily. With I Can Animate you can bring...
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Snow White & the Huntsman in Books
Apr 27, 2018
You know what I love? Creatively re-told fairy-tales. You know what I hate? Terribly re-told fairy-tales made into crappy movies and then made into a book, written with poor prose. That pretty much summarizes how I feel about this (audio)book.
Let's start with the good:
1. The narrator was excellent. She also read for Daughter of Smoke and Bone, Why We Broke Up, the Iron King, and many other audiobooks. She made even the dullest most pointless sentences, pieces of dialogue, and descriptions sound interesting, and managed to hold my attention most of they way through the audiobook (until I stopped for dinner, and then realized I really didn't want to start listening again.)
2. It was fast-paced. The plot never slowed... but there were parts where the unneeded descriptions seemed to slow down and break the tension, or unnecessary interior monologue broke the mood.
3. The bad guys were very bad, and the good guys were very good. It made it a classic hero-vilan fairy-tale.
Now for the not-so-good:
1. Poor writing. It wasn't Stephenie-Meyer Terrible, but every sentence started with "he..." "she..." "He said," "She felt..." and it felt repetitive and boring. There was no sentence structure besides basic subject-verb-direct object. Also, the adjectives, adverbs, and overall descriptions and vocabulary was boring, expected, and unfeeling.
2. Who names a princess "Snow White?" Really? I can see naming her "Snow" or something, but if you're going to re-tell a fairy-tale, at least give your heroine a name that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. I realize that this is a complaint about the movie screenplay, not the book adaption... but still. It felt awkward to have all these names like William, Eric, Gus, Anna, Lilly, and... Snow White.
3. The bad guys were soul-less, and the good guys were perfect. Even bad characters have some redeeming value as to why you kind of wish they didn't have to die, but they're bad so you have to kill them. The bad guys in this story were just so bad, there was no way you could not hate them. The good guys were flawless: children obeyed their parents, men saved their women, women sacrificed for their families, and Snow White was a sweet innocent little angel. I'm sorry, but even good guys have a bad side. And if you're perfect, I couldn't care less what happens to you, because I can't relate to you.
So that is, essentially, why I stopped listening to the audiobook halfway through.
Let's start with the good:
1. The narrator was excellent. She also read for Daughter of Smoke and Bone, Why We Broke Up, the Iron King, and many other audiobooks. She made even the dullest most pointless sentences, pieces of dialogue, and descriptions sound interesting, and managed to hold my attention most of they way through the audiobook (until I stopped for dinner, and then realized I really didn't want to start listening again.)
2. It was fast-paced. The plot never slowed... but there were parts where the unneeded descriptions seemed to slow down and break the tension, or unnecessary interior monologue broke the mood.
3. The bad guys were very bad, and the good guys were very good. It made it a classic hero-vilan fairy-tale.
Now for the not-so-good:
1. Poor writing. It wasn't Stephenie-Meyer Terrible, but every sentence started with "he..." "she..." "He said," "She felt..." and it felt repetitive and boring. There was no sentence structure besides basic subject-verb-direct object. Also, the adjectives, adverbs, and overall descriptions and vocabulary was boring, expected, and unfeeling.
2. Who names a princess "Snow White?" Really? I can see naming her "Snow" or something, but if you're going to re-tell a fairy-tale, at least give your heroine a name that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. I realize that this is a complaint about the movie screenplay, not the book adaption... but still. It felt awkward to have all these names like William, Eric, Gus, Anna, Lilly, and... Snow White.
3. The bad guys were soul-less, and the good guys were perfect. Even bad characters have some redeeming value as to why you kind of wish they didn't have to die, but they're bad so you have to kill them. The bad guys in this story were just so bad, there was no way you could not hate them. The good guys were flawless: children obeyed their parents, men saved their women, women sacrificed for their families, and Snow White was a sweet innocent little angel. I'm sorry, but even good guys have a bad side. And if you're perfect, I couldn't care less what happens to you, because I can't relate to you.
So that is, essentially, why I stopped listening to the audiobook halfway through.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
Kris Karcher (10 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Better then it looks.
Contains spoilers, click to show
It’s been years since I’ve seen the original 1995 Jumanji, but from what I can remember as a 5-10 year old (not sure when I got around to owning the VHS) I enjoyed it. Robin Williams was on fire in the 90’s and turned in another comparable performance in this fun action adventure film. This new incarnation of the Jumanji tale changes direction a bit. For one it swaps the outdated board game that contains an entire jungle world inside it, for a more cultural relevant video game console that contains an entire jungle world inside it. I’m actually surprised they didn't use an iPad. 2017’s Jumanji also adds in a body swapping element. The teens that enter the game suddenly become adult video game characters. Complete with skills and weakness of varying degrees of usefulness.
Semantics aside, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is also a serviceable blockbuster flick. It’s a fun film that moves at a decent pace and avoids a lot of the typical dull spots most popcorn flicks fall victim to. The adult cast is a fun mixture of comedic talent and have some great chemistry together. The teenage cast less so but they have a more limited role in the film. I enjoyed watching the adult cast attempt to convey the teenagers “inside” them. Dwayne Johnson does this particularly well, playing a timid nerdy teenager trapped in the body of a jacked, smoldering, elite fighting machine. The film purposefully miscast each role. Kevin Hart play’s the avatar of a 6ft football star, Jack black stands in for a Mean Chick-esc selfie obsessed teenage girl, and the bad ass Karen Gillan plays the avatar of an insecure self-conscious teenage girl. The dichotomy of the characters real-life personalities always being at odds with their avatars new physical and mental attributes provides much of the comedy. Not all of it lands, but enough does and they don’t overdo it.
Once we enter the world of Jumanji the characters attempt to figure out how the “game” works. This leads to some humorous video game style exposition. I found this method of exposition to be unique and interesting. Incorporating NPC’s (Non-playable characters) whose sole purpose is to help players figure out what is going on and how to play the game was a fun and meta way to advance the story. It sort of reminds me of some of the things I enjoyed about 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph.
Then the gang runs into the other player in the game and another star of the film, Nick Jonas. Jonas plays Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough who is the avatar of Zack a teenage boy sucked into the game in 1997 (Jonas uses 1997 lingo frequently. Radical.) and has lived in the jungle for what he claims to be “a few months”. This leads to the biggest missed opportunity of the film. Time apparently moves differently in Jumanji. A few months in Jumanji translates to 20 years in real life. When Zack is told he has been missing 20 years this should have been a major B plot. They do try and add some weight to the situation by showing how deeply affected Zack is by this news, but I feel they could have explored this dynamic a bit further. Especially when it comes to the ending. Which is a bit anticlimactic. Once they all end up working together to escape Jumanji they all are all transported back to their respective timelines and it would appear as though no time has passed. So it sort of ditches the whole being stuck in the game for 20 years angle and instead chooses to allow Zack to live a full and complete life starting from 1997. Also, the main cast seems to be unaffected timeline wise. All of this film took place while they were down in the basement serving their detentions. It would have made for a much more interesting ending if they return to their bodies and find out that in the real world they were gone for a longer period of time. Even just a week or so would have added an interesting dynamic to the pretty flat and standard ending. They do end up meeting up with grown-up Zack (Played by Colin Hanks) and there is a nice little payoff to the quasi-romance Nick Jonas and Jack Black had throughout the film. (Yes you read that correctly.) Alex named his daughter after Bethany who saved his life in the jungle.
The four teenagers all learn valuable life lessons inside the jungle. Fridge leans to appreciate his friend Spencer. Spencer learns to man up and take risks. Bethany learns to care about something other than herself and her popularity, and Martha learns to come out of her shell a bit and open up. While I often find these types of stories to be heavy-handed and snooze-worthy Jumanji manages to keep the gushy feel good stuff to a minimum. It’s there, and it’s obvious but it’s not in your face enough to bring down the movie.
Ultimately I will go ahead and recommend Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle if your into Action comedy that doesn't ever take itself too seriously. I repeat this is not a serious movie. But it is a mildly funny, family-friendly romp that I fully expect anyone who paid for a ticket to at least get their monies worth. Provided they came in with the right expectations.
Semantics aside, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is also a serviceable blockbuster flick. It’s a fun film that moves at a decent pace and avoids a lot of the typical dull spots most popcorn flicks fall victim to. The adult cast is a fun mixture of comedic talent and have some great chemistry together. The teenage cast less so but they have a more limited role in the film. I enjoyed watching the adult cast attempt to convey the teenagers “inside” them. Dwayne Johnson does this particularly well, playing a timid nerdy teenager trapped in the body of a jacked, smoldering, elite fighting machine. The film purposefully miscast each role. Kevin Hart play’s the avatar of a 6ft football star, Jack black stands in for a Mean Chick-esc selfie obsessed teenage girl, and the bad ass Karen Gillan plays the avatar of an insecure self-conscious teenage girl. The dichotomy of the characters real-life personalities always being at odds with their avatars new physical and mental attributes provides much of the comedy. Not all of it lands, but enough does and they don’t overdo it.
Once we enter the world of Jumanji the characters attempt to figure out how the “game” works. This leads to some humorous video game style exposition. I found this method of exposition to be unique and interesting. Incorporating NPC’s (Non-playable characters) whose sole purpose is to help players figure out what is going on and how to play the game was a fun and meta way to advance the story. It sort of reminds me of some of the things I enjoyed about 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph.
Then the gang runs into the other player in the game and another star of the film, Nick Jonas. Jonas plays Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough who is the avatar of Zack a teenage boy sucked into the game in 1997 (Jonas uses 1997 lingo frequently. Radical.) and has lived in the jungle for what he claims to be “a few months”. This leads to the biggest missed opportunity of the film. Time apparently moves differently in Jumanji. A few months in Jumanji translates to 20 years in real life. When Zack is told he has been missing 20 years this should have been a major B plot. They do try and add some weight to the situation by showing how deeply affected Zack is by this news, but I feel they could have explored this dynamic a bit further. Especially when it comes to the ending. Which is a bit anticlimactic. Once they all end up working together to escape Jumanji they all are all transported back to their respective timelines and it would appear as though no time has passed. So it sort of ditches the whole being stuck in the game for 20 years angle and instead chooses to allow Zack to live a full and complete life starting from 1997. Also, the main cast seems to be unaffected timeline wise. All of this film took place while they were down in the basement serving their detentions. It would have made for a much more interesting ending if they return to their bodies and find out that in the real world they were gone for a longer period of time. Even just a week or so would have added an interesting dynamic to the pretty flat and standard ending. They do end up meeting up with grown-up Zack (Played by Colin Hanks) and there is a nice little payoff to the quasi-romance Nick Jonas and Jack Black had throughout the film. (Yes you read that correctly.) Alex named his daughter after Bethany who saved his life in the jungle.
The four teenagers all learn valuable life lessons inside the jungle. Fridge leans to appreciate his friend Spencer. Spencer learns to man up and take risks. Bethany learns to care about something other than herself and her popularity, and Martha learns to come out of her shell a bit and open up. While I often find these types of stories to be heavy-handed and snooze-worthy Jumanji manages to keep the gushy feel good stuff to a minimum. It’s there, and it’s obvious but it’s not in your face enough to bring down the movie.
Ultimately I will go ahead and recommend Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle if your into Action comedy that doesn't ever take itself too seriously. I repeat this is not a serious movie. But it is a mildly funny, family-friendly romp that I fully expect anyone who paid for a ticket to at least get their monies worth. Provided they came in with the right expectations.
Nighty Night! - The bedtime story app for children
Book and Education
App
The most popular bedtime story on the App Store! Over 4 million downloads. „App of Year“...
Nighty Night! - The bedtime story app
Book and Education
App
The most popular bedtime story on the App Store! Over 4 million downloads. „App of Year“...
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Everything, Everything in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I'm part of a reading challenge on this app called Habitica where I have to read a book turning into a movie this year, so <em>Everything, Everything</em> kind of got picked because of that. (I know it's problematic. The reading challenges are the only reasons why I chose to read the book.)
Anelise and I were also throwing out random books from our library for hours and this was the first that we both had a copy of or could borrow from the library, so here we are.
<b>
</b> <b>I was hoping to learn more from <i>Everything, Everything</i> than I actually did.</b> Madeline Whittier, aka Maddy, is someone who has SCID - an immune disorder where those affected basically have to be isolated from everything. <b>I learned virtually nothing but the bare bones definition of SCID</b> for the duration of the book:
<ul>
<li>You have to be isolated from the world</li>
<li>Anything, ANYTHING can trigger a reaction</li>
<li>It is basically a very miserable life</li>
</ul>
<div>Let's be honest: it's the dictionary definition.</div>
And <b>everything is so WHIT</b>E. White walls, white rooms, white bookshelves - I like the occasional white but ALL white is associated with hospitals. <b>I suppose hospital is the atmosphere Yoon is going for? </b>Still, though. Hospitals do have a splash of color somewhere? At least I'm pretty sure they do, but I'm that one kid who rarely went to the hospital.
So if you want the really quick version:<b> the romance is the plot</b>. I'm usually not a fan of contemporary romance, but I've been on a contemporary streak lately after reading some amazing books lately in the genre. <b>The romance between Mandy and Olly is adorable</b> - seeing their limited interactions, IMs, emails, etc. and even when they saw each other outside of those. <b>If you don't mind a cute romance or have a curiosity to know more about SCID, then <i>Everything, Everything</i> might be up your alley.</b> But I like learning things. This is why I'm still Ravenclaw and not Gryffindor, so Pottermore is wrong, I tell you. WRONG.
I thought<b> the layout was interesting and different, making the book seem quicker</b>. I also loved the illustrations - they complemented the story really well and felt like a nice addition.
Despite the cute romance, interesting layout, and amazing illustrations, <b>I am still disappointed with the ending.</b> It's one of those endings that might depend on the reader’s preferences, but I thought <b>it was a screwed up ending where some of the characters have HUGE issues</b>. I know I have my own issues of life, but this one is a really messy issue and I'm surprised no one got even a tiny bit suspicious for what? 16, 17 years?
I know there are some out there who will turn around and say that <i>Everything, Everything</i> is a fantastic novel. It is! But <b>the ending ruined everything, and I cannot add this to my collection of shove worthy books.</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/everything-everything-by-nicola-yoon/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Anelise and I were also throwing out random books from our library for hours and this was the first that we both had a copy of or could borrow from the library, so here we are.
<b>
</b> <b>I was hoping to learn more from <i>Everything, Everything</i> than I actually did.</b> Madeline Whittier, aka Maddy, is someone who has SCID - an immune disorder where those affected basically have to be isolated from everything. <b>I learned virtually nothing but the bare bones definition of SCID</b> for the duration of the book:
<ul>
<li>You have to be isolated from the world</li>
<li>Anything, ANYTHING can trigger a reaction</li>
<li>It is basically a very miserable life</li>
</ul>
<div>Let's be honest: it's the dictionary definition.</div>
And <b>everything is so WHIT</b>E. White walls, white rooms, white bookshelves - I like the occasional white but ALL white is associated with hospitals. <b>I suppose hospital is the atmosphere Yoon is going for? </b>Still, though. Hospitals do have a splash of color somewhere? At least I'm pretty sure they do, but I'm that one kid who rarely went to the hospital.
So if you want the really quick version:<b> the romance is the plot</b>. I'm usually not a fan of contemporary romance, but I've been on a contemporary streak lately after reading some amazing books lately in the genre. <b>The romance between Mandy and Olly is adorable</b> - seeing their limited interactions, IMs, emails, etc. and even when they saw each other outside of those. <b>If you don't mind a cute romance or have a curiosity to know more about SCID, then <i>Everything, Everything</i> might be up your alley.</b> But I like learning things. This is why I'm still Ravenclaw and not Gryffindor, so Pottermore is wrong, I tell you. WRONG.
I thought<b> the layout was interesting and different, making the book seem quicker</b>. I also loved the illustrations - they complemented the story really well and felt like a nice addition.
Despite the cute romance, interesting layout, and amazing illustrations, <b>I am still disappointed with the ending.</b> It's one of those endings that might depend on the reader’s preferences, but I thought <b>it was a screwed up ending where some of the characters have HUGE issues</b>. I know I have my own issues of life, but this one is a really messy issue and I'm surprised no one got even a tiny bit suspicious for what? 16, 17 years?
I know there are some out there who will turn around and say that <i>Everything, Everything</i> is a fantastic novel. It is! But <b>the ending ruined everything, and I cannot add this to my collection of shove worthy books.</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/everything-everything-by-nicola-yoon/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>