Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Beautiful Creatures (Caster Chronicles, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Like most books I read, Beautiful Creatures was just randomly picked up and looked interesting, so I read it. Plus, I needed some books to occupy me and it was somehow on my to-read list already. I just didn't get the chance to read it over the summer. Call that lucky to be in the library at the time.
I will probably admit, that although I read the entire series, I didn't really like the first 2 books in the series. Except for the ending and the summaries. Which was why I continued reading the series. :) Or maybe there was just something special about Ethan, Lena, Riley, Link, etc that I just can't place a tab on? Or was there a little cliffhanger (which I totally love) that just urged me to read on and give the series another try?
I will also admit that I liked Beautiful Chaos overall. The character haven't changed... although they have. In a way. Ethan is still plain Wayward, just like from Day One. Besides getting "chased around" by his other self, of course. Lena is back to herself again, although she is now a light and dark caster due to the Seventeenth Moon. I didn't really enjoy Lena's distance and major meltdown from Beautiful Darkness, so it's nice to know that we get her back again.
Link has changed majorly in a way, at least in physical and how do you say this? erm, he's developed "Vampire-like" senses after being bit by John Breed from Beautiful Darkness, so he's now one-quarters Incubus. He's still on and off with Once Upon A Siren, Riley, but she's still same old, same old Riley. In Mortal form, yet continues about life Siren Style with no powers.
Overall, Beautiful Chaos is my favorite book out of the series so far. It's more action-packed than the books before it, even if it has quite the sad ending. I will most likely read the fourth and final book in the series, Beautiful Redemption (released already) because I just have to know what happens next to Ethan, Lena and the other characters.
Speaking of which, and I know I'm a bit off-topic, but who's excited for the Beautiful Creatures movie? I know am! The trailer looked awesome...
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-beautiful-chaos-by-kami-garcia-and-margaret-stohl/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
I will probably admit, that although I read the entire series, I didn't really like the first 2 books in the series. Except for the ending and the summaries. Which was why I continued reading the series. :) Or maybe there was just something special about Ethan, Lena, Riley, Link, etc that I just can't place a tab on? Or was there a little cliffhanger (which I totally love) that just urged me to read on and give the series another try?
I will also admit that I liked Beautiful Chaos overall. The character haven't changed... although they have. In a way. Ethan is still plain Wayward, just like from Day One. Besides getting "chased around" by his other self, of course. Lena is back to herself again, although she is now a light and dark caster due to the Seventeenth Moon. I didn't really enjoy Lena's distance and major meltdown from Beautiful Darkness, so it's nice to know that we get her back again.
Link has changed majorly in a way, at least in physical and how do you say this? erm, he's developed "Vampire-like" senses after being bit by John Breed from Beautiful Darkness, so he's now one-quarters Incubus. He's still on and off with Once Upon A Siren, Riley, but she's still same old, same old Riley. In Mortal form, yet continues about life Siren Style with no powers.
Overall, Beautiful Chaos is my favorite book out of the series so far. It's more action-packed than the books before it, even if it has quite the sad ending. I will most likely read the fourth and final book in the series, Beautiful Redemption (released already) because I just have to know what happens next to Ethan, Lena and the other characters.
Speaking of which, and I know I'm a bit off-topic, but who's excited for the Beautiful Creatures movie? I know am! The trailer looked awesome...
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-beautiful-chaos-by-kami-garcia-and-margaret-stohl/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Argo: How the CIA and Hollywood Pulled Off the Most Audacious Rescue in History
Matt Baglio and Antonio Mendez
Book
Argo by Antonio Mendez and Matt Baglio - the declassified CIA story behind the Oscar-winning film...
Nick Rhodes recommended Nightclubbing by Grace Jones in Music (curated)
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Invitation (2015) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Will is the grieving former husband of Eden that attends a party hosted by his ex-wife which brings back the memories of his son, but he starts becoming paranoid about the reason for the party, he is the only one that thinks something strange is happening. Kira is Will’s new girlfriend that gets to meet his old friends at this party, she tries to be social even when his paranoia doesn’t help her get the welcome she desires. Eden is the host of the part, the ex-wife of Will’s that seems to have turned over a new leaf by joining the cult that she starts to recruit for with her new partner David.
Performance – Logan Marshall-Green does a good job here because one moment in the film he is calm, then paranoid, then emotional and back to normal, this performance shows us a full range he must go through. Emayatzy is also good as the unknown element at the party. With Tammy Blanchard being the unhinged but at times calm host of the party.
Story – The story circles around a party being held for old friends as the host has reinvented herself after the loss of her son, everything seems strange through the night until we learn about the cult she has become part of and wants the friends to become part of it but one man gets paranoid about what is happening during the night. It is easy to follow and you do spend most of the film waiting to see where it all ends up going which is rewarding by the end.
Horror/Mystery – The horror of this film comes from the idea that the characters are being recruited for a cult, while the mystery side of everything leaves us to figure out just what has been happening.
Settings – The film takes place in one house that shows how a dinner party can turn sour as everything it not quite right.
Scene of the Movie – Not the drinks.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is a slow build up that does seem to give too many supporting characters screen time they don’t need.
Final Thoughts – This is a good horror film, it does take time to build to the final act which is built through the tension that goes through the whole film.
Overall: Good horror that you get rewarded with by the end.
Performance – Logan Marshall-Green does a good job here because one moment in the film he is calm, then paranoid, then emotional and back to normal, this performance shows us a full range he must go through. Emayatzy is also good as the unknown element at the party. With Tammy Blanchard being the unhinged but at times calm host of the party.
Story – The story circles around a party being held for old friends as the host has reinvented herself after the loss of her son, everything seems strange through the night until we learn about the cult she has become part of and wants the friends to become part of it but one man gets paranoid about what is happening during the night. It is easy to follow and you do spend most of the film waiting to see where it all ends up going which is rewarding by the end.
Horror/Mystery – The horror of this film comes from the idea that the characters are being recruited for a cult, while the mystery side of everything leaves us to figure out just what has been happening.
Settings – The film takes place in one house that shows how a dinner party can turn sour as everything it not quite right.
Scene of the Movie – Not the drinks.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is a slow build up that does seem to give too many supporting characters screen time they don’t need.
Final Thoughts – This is a good horror film, it does take time to build to the final act which is built through the tension that goes through the whole film.
Overall: Good horror that you get rewarded with by the end.
iYoga - Premium
Health & Fitness and Medical
App
This app will not run on iPad 1. This app is for users that are looking for the very best content...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Death to 2020 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
The annual event of Charlie Brooker’s Yearly Wipe is the one piece of satire I have been sure not to miss over the years. But 2020 has been a bit different, and finding himself in lockdown like everyone else, Brooker re-imagines the format into a full on talking-heads mockumentary that does away with himself as host in favour of a cross Atlantic vibe and a narration from the bass tones of Laurence Fishburne, no less.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Beast Within: A Tale of Beauty's Prince (Villains #2) in Books
Aug 24, 2019
Beauty and the Beast is arguably one of my favourite Disney classics. I adored Tale as Old as Time and so the Beast’s version of the villain’s tale series had some pretty big boots to fill.
The Beast Within is the second book in the villains’ series and shifts between time periods to provide the reader with an insight to the Beast’s life before and after he was cursed. This was such an interesting concept because each version of Beauty and the Beast contains the vain prince who shuns the enchantress: it’s a pretty key part of the story! However, Serena Valentino expands upon this and, although the Prince becomes no more likeable, Valentino humanises him. We learn the extent of his vanity and, to be honest, probably dislike him more than the original version!
We also receive more of an insight into the Odd Sisters within this novel. We visit their house and gain an idea of the pecking order within the foursome. Yes foursome! I have not drunk too much prosecco and can no longer count (well not yet) – the witches have a little sister.
Circe is as beautiful as her sisters are odd and also happens to be engaged to the Prince (massive coincidence I am sure) but is rejected by him when his best friend Gaston reveals that her family are pig farmers. He claims she deceived him with her beauty and is sickened by her grotesque appearance now he knows the truth.
In fact, by placing Gaston and the Prince side by side we start to think that maybe Belle made the wrong choice by dismissing the shallow hunter so quickly!
Needless to say, Circe is crushed: she accuses him of behaving like a beast, being tainted by vanity and not capable of true love. The spurned witch curses the Prince, warning him that he will slowly transform into the horrifying creature that he is within.
The fact that the reader witnesses the full transformation of Prince into Beast is really interesting and Circe’s words have a profound effect on the Prince, his grasp on his sanity and his future relationships. He veers wildly between dismissing Circe as crazy whilst simultaneously finding a bride in order to break the spell.
Naturally, the Prince is not alone in this story: Mrs Potts, Cogsworth and Lumiere unwittingly become swept up in Circe’s curse. In fact, the odd sisters taunt the Beast, implying that he is only concerned about his servants because of what they may do to him if the curse is not lifted.
Valentino does choose to express that Mrs Potts, in particular, had great affection for the Prince and Gaston as children but this isn’t really played on at all. The reader does gain the sense that the Prince is cared for by his staff but there are no real relationships developed here. Even when Lumiere realises that the Prince views the objects of the curse differently from everyone else; there lacks the compassion and assistance of their animated counterparts.
Another relationship that lacked conviction was that between the Beast and Belle. This is one of the most iconic love stories in the Disney portfolio but I’m afraid I just wasn’t feeling it. I understand that Valentino needs to focus on Tulip: she is an important character who shows the Prince’s desperation, his unwillingness to change and his escalating beastly behaviour (she also links into the next book in the series). However, the focus on Tulip seems to sacrifice any detail when it comes to Belle. Yes, we learn that she attended the original ball and that she will do anything to save her father but that’s pretty much it. The blossoming romance that ensues is witnessed third hand via the odd sisters’ mirror and it begs the question: is this the tale of Beauty’s Prince or is the tale of Circe and her sisters?
Despite Circe being the youngest, it is often implied that she is more powerful than her older sisters and, although she does seem more sane, it cannot be said that Circe is a pushover: upon learning of her sisters’ involvement in the Beast’s fate, Circe punishes them; removes the curse and creates the spinning prince complete with fireworks that we remember from the original movie. This transition from bitter, heartbroken witch to sympathetic and forgiving is unforeseen and abrupt. To be honest it felt like it was a convenient way of shoe-horning the movie ending into the book.
Overall, I loved the potential of The Beast Within. I really enjoyed learning more about the Prince’s character and seeing a side of him that the reader cannot merely brush off as young or vain: he was a truly horrible person. I also loved the little nods to the fairy-tale world, such as Gaston suggesting a ball because it all worked out for the Prince’s friend “after the business with the slipper”.
Valentino also provides hints to future novels and so the references to Ursula were very intriguing as I prepare to read ‘Poor Unfortunate Soul’ next. There is the occasional reference to the old Queen, as well as the continuation of the theme of mirrors and love as a weakness: the odd sisters really do dominate the tales.
In a way I almost feel that the book has a little too much going on: we have the beast’s battle against the curse; the odd sister’s magic; Circe and Ursula’s little tangent and the original storyline. In my opinion, all of these factors make the ending of the book very rushed. For example, the Beast juxtaposes from being unable to fall in love with someone like Belle to presenting her with an entire library just to see her smile in a matter of sentences!
It is a shame because, after the ending of ‘Fairest of All’ I was expecting so much more. I did still like the book but I didn’t love it- I felt like the book could have expanded more on the more unique/dark aspects of the story, such as the creepy statues and the Beast’s alternative view of the curse.
Ah well, you can’t love them all! Onwards and upwards to Poor Unfortunate Soul!
The Beast Within is the second book in the villains’ series and shifts between time periods to provide the reader with an insight to the Beast’s life before and after he was cursed. This was such an interesting concept because each version of Beauty and the Beast contains the vain prince who shuns the enchantress: it’s a pretty key part of the story! However, Serena Valentino expands upon this and, although the Prince becomes no more likeable, Valentino humanises him. We learn the extent of his vanity and, to be honest, probably dislike him more than the original version!
We also receive more of an insight into the Odd Sisters within this novel. We visit their house and gain an idea of the pecking order within the foursome. Yes foursome! I have not drunk too much prosecco and can no longer count (well not yet) – the witches have a little sister.
Circe is as beautiful as her sisters are odd and also happens to be engaged to the Prince (massive coincidence I am sure) but is rejected by him when his best friend Gaston reveals that her family are pig farmers. He claims she deceived him with her beauty and is sickened by her grotesque appearance now he knows the truth.
In fact, by placing Gaston and the Prince side by side we start to think that maybe Belle made the wrong choice by dismissing the shallow hunter so quickly!
Needless to say, Circe is crushed: she accuses him of behaving like a beast, being tainted by vanity and not capable of true love. The spurned witch curses the Prince, warning him that he will slowly transform into the horrifying creature that he is within.
The fact that the reader witnesses the full transformation of Prince into Beast is really interesting and Circe’s words have a profound effect on the Prince, his grasp on his sanity and his future relationships. He veers wildly between dismissing Circe as crazy whilst simultaneously finding a bride in order to break the spell.
Naturally, the Prince is not alone in this story: Mrs Potts, Cogsworth and Lumiere unwittingly become swept up in Circe’s curse. In fact, the odd sisters taunt the Beast, implying that he is only concerned about his servants because of what they may do to him if the curse is not lifted.
Valentino does choose to express that Mrs Potts, in particular, had great affection for the Prince and Gaston as children but this isn’t really played on at all. The reader does gain the sense that the Prince is cared for by his staff but there are no real relationships developed here. Even when Lumiere realises that the Prince views the objects of the curse differently from everyone else; there lacks the compassion and assistance of their animated counterparts.
Another relationship that lacked conviction was that between the Beast and Belle. This is one of the most iconic love stories in the Disney portfolio but I’m afraid I just wasn’t feeling it. I understand that Valentino needs to focus on Tulip: she is an important character who shows the Prince’s desperation, his unwillingness to change and his escalating beastly behaviour (she also links into the next book in the series). However, the focus on Tulip seems to sacrifice any detail when it comes to Belle. Yes, we learn that she attended the original ball and that she will do anything to save her father but that’s pretty much it. The blossoming romance that ensues is witnessed third hand via the odd sisters’ mirror and it begs the question: is this the tale of Beauty’s Prince or is the tale of Circe and her sisters?
Despite Circe being the youngest, it is often implied that she is more powerful than her older sisters and, although she does seem more sane, it cannot be said that Circe is a pushover: upon learning of her sisters’ involvement in the Beast’s fate, Circe punishes them; removes the curse and creates the spinning prince complete with fireworks that we remember from the original movie. This transition from bitter, heartbroken witch to sympathetic and forgiving is unforeseen and abrupt. To be honest it felt like it was a convenient way of shoe-horning the movie ending into the book.
Overall, I loved the potential of The Beast Within. I really enjoyed learning more about the Prince’s character and seeing a side of him that the reader cannot merely brush off as young or vain: he was a truly horrible person. I also loved the little nods to the fairy-tale world, such as Gaston suggesting a ball because it all worked out for the Prince’s friend “after the business with the slipper”.
Valentino also provides hints to future novels and so the references to Ursula were very intriguing as I prepare to read ‘Poor Unfortunate Soul’ next. There is the occasional reference to the old Queen, as well as the continuation of the theme of mirrors and love as a weakness: the odd sisters really do dominate the tales.
In a way I almost feel that the book has a little too much going on: we have the beast’s battle against the curse; the odd sister’s magic; Circe and Ursula’s little tangent and the original storyline. In my opinion, all of these factors make the ending of the book very rushed. For example, the Beast juxtaposes from being unable to fall in love with someone like Belle to presenting her with an entire library just to see her smile in a matter of sentences!
It is a shame because, after the ending of ‘Fairest of All’ I was expecting so much more. I did still like the book but I didn’t love it- I felt like the book could have expanded more on the more unique/dark aspects of the story, such as the creepy statues and the Beast’s alternative view of the curse.
Ah well, you can’t love them all! Onwards and upwards to Poor Unfortunate Soul!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I had mixed emotions when I first saw the trailer for Pan. The story of Peter Pan was one of my all time favorites growing up. Then Steven Spielberg had to go and get Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman together to bring us Hook, and it solidified the stories of Pan as the best thing since sliced bread for me. So here we have Joe Wright bringing the word put on paper by Jason Fuchs to real life. The story of how Peter came to Neverland; and just how did Captain James T. Hook become so fearful of crocodiles. I was worried, and so I shut it all out. I did not watch any more trailers, clips, or synopsis on the film. But, my curiosity got the best of me, and when we offered the press screening, I jumped at the opportunity to see it. And boy, I am glad I did.
Pan, in case you haven’t figured it out, tells the story of 12-year old orphan Peter (Levi Miller), who is abducted from his orphanage, along with many other little boy orphans, by pirates from Neverland. When they bring Peter to Neverland, he is forced to work in the mines, serving the evil pirate overlord, Black Beard (Hugh Jackman, no seriously. It totally doesn’t even look like him.). It’s not long before some very unusual things start happening to him, and he, along with James T. Hook (Garrett Hedlund), escape the mines to find the natives and Princess Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), who helps Peter discover his destiny.
Loaded with stunning visuals and a great soundtrack (including some very recognizable songs in the form of pirate chants), Pan nails it in all the right ways. The visionaries who brought this world to life are amazing, and the creativity in every scene is astounding. It was especially charming that the people behind the film kept in mind that it is a family film. While there is some violence, it is an action movie after all, they applied some very interesting effects and theories to use in place of the gore and blood. I also enjoyed, as weird as this sounds, the brightness of the whole movie. They didn’t try to make the film a dark tale of gritty origins. The feel of the story has the same notes of brightness that I remember from the Disney film as a kid, to even Hook in my later years.
And the likenesses do not stop there. It was very fun, and a bit nostalgic, to catch the references and clues of what’s to come. You see things that influence the characters to become who we know and love. And true to the rumors/stories I heard of the background of the beloved Peter Pan tale, Captain Hook and Peter began their time together as friends. The film sets out to do what it was meant to do… tell the story of how Peter and Captain Hook became who they were. But, not all is revealed in this film. When the film is over, and you’ll wish it weren’t, our beloved hero and villain have a long way to go still. So look forward to more films to come.
The only gripe I had with this movie was the acting. And just one part in general. I felt most of the cast was excellent. Jackman portrayed a great, and zany by the standards of the Paniverse (hoping to coin a new term here people, #paniverse), pirate… czar?! I know I used overlord, but it’s hard to say what he is other than he is the captain of captains. Mara played Tiger Lily oh so very well, and Miller held his own right up there with the bigger names. But it was Hedlund I had issue with. His portrayal of James Hook was more reminiscent of Jack Nicholson with elongated words, and an almost creepy like vibe. It’s just not how I imagined him to act, and maybe that is just throwing my perception off. Though, my feeling and view of the portrayal was echoed by my guest at the screening, so there may be something to it. Luckily, my negative view of the acting was not enough to pull me out of the experience, and I was still able to enjoy the movie.
Bottom line. Go see this movie. Take your kids, your partners, your parents, your grandparents, your cousin’s, aunt’s son/daughter… oh wait. That’s you. The point is. It’s definitely worth seeing. The 3D effects were nothing ground breaking, but it would still be worth it to see it in 3D. And this will definitely be in my collection on day 1 of home release.
Pan, in case you haven’t figured it out, tells the story of 12-year old orphan Peter (Levi Miller), who is abducted from his orphanage, along with many other little boy orphans, by pirates from Neverland. When they bring Peter to Neverland, he is forced to work in the mines, serving the evil pirate overlord, Black Beard (Hugh Jackman, no seriously. It totally doesn’t even look like him.). It’s not long before some very unusual things start happening to him, and he, along with James T. Hook (Garrett Hedlund), escape the mines to find the natives and Princess Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), who helps Peter discover his destiny.
Loaded with stunning visuals and a great soundtrack (including some very recognizable songs in the form of pirate chants), Pan nails it in all the right ways. The visionaries who brought this world to life are amazing, and the creativity in every scene is astounding. It was especially charming that the people behind the film kept in mind that it is a family film. While there is some violence, it is an action movie after all, they applied some very interesting effects and theories to use in place of the gore and blood. I also enjoyed, as weird as this sounds, the brightness of the whole movie. They didn’t try to make the film a dark tale of gritty origins. The feel of the story has the same notes of brightness that I remember from the Disney film as a kid, to even Hook in my later years.
And the likenesses do not stop there. It was very fun, and a bit nostalgic, to catch the references and clues of what’s to come. You see things that influence the characters to become who we know and love. And true to the rumors/stories I heard of the background of the beloved Peter Pan tale, Captain Hook and Peter began their time together as friends. The film sets out to do what it was meant to do… tell the story of how Peter and Captain Hook became who they were. But, not all is revealed in this film. When the film is over, and you’ll wish it weren’t, our beloved hero and villain have a long way to go still. So look forward to more films to come.
The only gripe I had with this movie was the acting. And just one part in general. I felt most of the cast was excellent. Jackman portrayed a great, and zany by the standards of the Paniverse (hoping to coin a new term here people, #paniverse), pirate… czar?! I know I used overlord, but it’s hard to say what he is other than he is the captain of captains. Mara played Tiger Lily oh so very well, and Miller held his own right up there with the bigger names. But it was Hedlund I had issue with. His portrayal of James Hook was more reminiscent of Jack Nicholson with elongated words, and an almost creepy like vibe. It’s just not how I imagined him to act, and maybe that is just throwing my perception off. Though, my feeling and view of the portrayal was echoed by my guest at the screening, so there may be something to it. Luckily, my negative view of the acting was not enough to pull me out of the experience, and I was still able to enjoy the movie.
Bottom line. Go see this movie. Take your kids, your partners, your parents, your grandparents, your cousin’s, aunt’s son/daughter… oh wait. That’s you. The point is. It’s definitely worth seeing. The 3D effects were nothing ground breaking, but it would still be worth it to see it in 3D. And this will definitely be in my collection on day 1 of home release.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Utterly preposterous
Thor is arguably one of Marvel’s strongest characters. Played by the superb Chris Hemsworth since 2011, the God of thunder is one of the MCUs most popular assets.
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021 (Updated Sep 29, 2021)
Miss Scarlett at the Airport with the Jet Engine.
“Game Night” is an American comedy film starring Jason Bateman (“Horrible Bosses”, “Central Intelligence“) as Max and Rachel McAdams (“Spotlight“, “Doctor Strange“) as Annie: two hyper-competitive professionals who invite other couples around to their house for a weekly night of charades and board games. The regulars are long-term couple Kevin and Michelle (Lamorne Morris and Kylie Bunbury) and complete buffoon Ryan (Billy Magnussen, “The Big Short“) and his revolving door of generally vacant girlfriends. Estranged from the group, after his divorce, is the creepy police officer Gary (Jesse Plemons, “The Post“, “American Made“) who lives next door.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.