Search
Search results
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Feb 17, 2018
Diverse casting (no, seriously.) (6 more)
STRONG WOMEN
Subverting stereotypes all day long
Excellent soundtrack
Ambiguous "villain"
Representation
The seamless blending of tech and tradition
BEST. MARVEL. MOVIE.
Contains spoilers, click to show
OH my god. This was definitely the best Marvel movie yet. Chadwick Boseman was absolutely amazing as T'Challa. (Warning, SPOILERS AHEAD.)
I loved that the love interest was already established - there weren't any "falling in love butterflies" to distract from the plot. SO MANY STRONG WOMEN. All of T'Challa's support were strong, gorgeous women of color. His mother, his sister, his general, his love interest. The female guards. Absolutely fantastic.
The blending of technology and traditions was superbly done. People still tend crops and animals and tan hides and go to the marketplace in Wakanda - but they have vibranium armor and weapons, and technological wonders on their wrists that pop up virtual screens, and their medical care is the best in the world. Oh, and ships. Spaceships, basically.
THE CLOTHES. The dresses, the makeup, the armor, the weapons - the appearance of Wakanda was amazing.
And then the plot. The difference between "Well, we're Wakandan, and we look out for the Wakandan people" and "We should be looking out for ALL of our people (black people all over the world, not just Wakandans.)" That was where the real conflict arose in Black Panther - and it was interesting that the two leads, while opposing each other, actually felt the same about it. Just with different ideas of how to do so. (There's a lot to unpack about why they feel this way - some of it, I think, goes back to African-Americans having their nationalities forcibly stripped from them during the slave trade - so being black is the only thing white people left them with; while non-American Africans have their national identities to look to. So they might be Nigerian or Ethiopian instead of one unified black group. And the opposing lead was brought up in America.)
The differences between how the Wakandans viewed white people, and how the American prince viewed white people, are a very important conflict. You can watch the movie as just another superhero movie, and it'll be good. But watching it looking for the racial undertones makes it absolutely fantastic.
Also - the casting is diverse. Just because it's almost all black people doesn't mean it's not diverse. Again, that's a white American thing, looking at black people as one unified group. They're not. Also how many movies have been almost all white people with a token black guy? People complaining about "lack of diversity" in this movie need to take their white supremacist selves out of the theater and away from this amazing movie.
I loved that the love interest was already established - there weren't any "falling in love butterflies" to distract from the plot. SO MANY STRONG WOMEN. All of T'Challa's support were strong, gorgeous women of color. His mother, his sister, his general, his love interest. The female guards. Absolutely fantastic.
The blending of technology and traditions was superbly done. People still tend crops and animals and tan hides and go to the marketplace in Wakanda - but they have vibranium armor and weapons, and technological wonders on their wrists that pop up virtual screens, and their medical care is the best in the world. Oh, and ships. Spaceships, basically.
THE CLOTHES. The dresses, the makeup, the armor, the weapons - the appearance of Wakanda was amazing.
And then the plot. The difference between "Well, we're Wakandan, and we look out for the Wakandan people" and "We should be looking out for ALL of our people (black people all over the world, not just Wakandans.)" That was where the real conflict arose in Black Panther - and it was interesting that the two leads, while opposing each other, actually felt the same about it. Just with different ideas of how to do so. (There's a lot to unpack about why they feel this way - some of it, I think, goes back to African-Americans having their nationalities forcibly stripped from them during the slave trade - so being black is the only thing white people left them with; while non-American Africans have their national identities to look to. So they might be Nigerian or Ethiopian instead of one unified black group. And the opposing lead was brought up in America.)
The differences between how the Wakandans viewed white people, and how the American prince viewed white people, are a very important conflict. You can watch the movie as just another superhero movie, and it'll be good. But watching it looking for the racial undertones makes it absolutely fantastic.
Also - the casting is diverse. Just because it's almost all black people doesn't mean it's not diverse. Again, that's a white American thing, looking at black people as one unified group. They're not. Also how many movies have been almost all white people with a token black guy? People complaining about "lack of diversity" in this movie need to take their white supremacist selves out of the theater and away from this amazing movie.
Roxanne (13 KP) rated The Forest of Hands and Teeth (The Forest of Hands and Teeth, #1) in Books
Nov 14, 2018
___ <b>3 Star Rating</b> ___
I just had to read this one as I fell in love with the front cover, it looked great so I expected a great story.
I had a love/hate relationship with this book, there were bits that were so good I wanted to shout from the rooftops but there were also parts that were so bad I wanted to run to a dark corner and cry.
<u>The bits I loved</u>
1. The suspense - Oh my life and soul I thought my heart was going to give out! That tension was fantastic! The way the author wrote the action scenes were great, the extra long description filled build ups which make you sweat and then straight into the action. The action was always really good with a nice bit of gore and clever tactics...very well done!
2. The dog - You have to have a dog in there somewhere, I love dogs! If the dog survives then that's extra points from me, I just want the animals to be ok...f*ck anyone else!
3. The Unconsecrated - Very well described, I liked the idea of 'The Fast One' and yeah I know they're Zombies...but I like Zombies.
<u>The bits I hated</u>
1. Mary! Mary! Aaaaand...Mary! - Oh what a pain in the ass! I did not like the MC one little bit. She was incredibly selfish, self centred and just plain rude. She was willing to step on anybody to get her own way. Everything was...love, love, love, OMG Mary I love you!
Mary: *Like I give a shit! I just wanna go to the Beach!*
People whom she supposedly loved were dropping like flies around her but oh well that's one less person in the way of her ocean filled dreams.
I'm sorry but I just hoped for this...
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/TJ9LVsr.jpg"; width="300" height="210"/>
2. Lack of character development - Actually, there was none. I still know nothing about the other characters, it's like they were just there to show how 'amazing' Mary really was. I so wanted at least one of the other characters to take centre stage for a while, just so I could see things from a different perspective...but no.
3. Lack of story building - So...why? When? Who? What? Did they live? Die? How did the dog get across the rope the second time?
Why the gates? The fences? Why are there Unconsecrated? What is the Sisterhood all about? What are they hiding? How did this all happen? WTF is Mary's problem?
Ok...so I know there's a second book and I've heard that it doesn't even carry the story on, if that is true I think I'm gonna scream. So many questions!
I just had to read this one as I fell in love with the front cover, it looked great so I expected a great story.
I had a love/hate relationship with this book, there were bits that were so good I wanted to shout from the rooftops but there were also parts that were so bad I wanted to run to a dark corner and cry.
<u>The bits I loved</u>
1. The suspense - Oh my life and soul I thought my heart was going to give out! That tension was fantastic! The way the author wrote the action scenes were great, the extra long description filled build ups which make you sweat and then straight into the action. The action was always really good with a nice bit of gore and clever tactics...very well done!
2. The dog - You have to have a dog in there somewhere, I love dogs! If the dog survives then that's extra points from me, I just want the animals to be ok...f*ck anyone else!
3. The Unconsecrated - Very well described, I liked the idea of 'The Fast One' and yeah I know they're Zombies...but I like Zombies.
<u>The bits I hated</u>
1. Mary! Mary! Aaaaand...Mary! - Oh what a pain in the ass! I did not like the MC one little bit. She was incredibly selfish, self centred and just plain rude. She was willing to step on anybody to get her own way. Everything was...love, love, love, OMG Mary I love you!
Mary: *Like I give a shit! I just wanna go to the Beach!*
People whom she supposedly loved were dropping like flies around her but oh well that's one less person in the way of her ocean filled dreams.
I'm sorry but I just hoped for this...
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/TJ9LVsr.jpg"; width="300" height="210"/>
2. Lack of character development - Actually, there was none. I still know nothing about the other characters, it's like they were just there to show how 'amazing' Mary really was. I so wanted at least one of the other characters to take centre stage for a while, just so I could see things from a different perspective...but no.
3. Lack of story building - So...why? When? Who? What? Did they live? Die? How did the dog get across the rope the second time?
Why the gates? The fences? Why are there Unconsecrated? What is the Sisterhood all about? What are they hiding? How did this all happen? WTF is Mary's problem?
Ok...so I know there's a second book and I've heard that it doesn't even carry the story on, if that is true I think I'm gonna scream. So many questions!
Fred (860 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
This is how you ruin a classic
Dumbo is one of my favorite Disney films. The original, not this crap. When told that his film was not long enough to be considered a full-length movie & that he would have to add 10 more minutes or so, Disney said "No. It's perfect the way it is." And he was right. The people who made this live-action remake apparently never heard that story. It's almost 2 hours long. The original story of the first film is done in about the first 20 minutes of this film, then it's an original sequel, basically.
The first & main problem of the film is the most obvious. The focus on the human characters over the animal characters. There are no talking animals in this one. Sure, Dumbo didn't talk, but he had Timothy mouse with him to speak for him. There's no stork, the bully elephants are gone, even the racist, but very entertaining crows are completely gone.
Second problem: Some of the music from the original film is here, but instrumental versions. Only "Baby Mine" is sung. We hear a clip of "Casey Jr." at the beginning. At the very end of the credits, we hear a bit of "When I See a Elephant Fly", but no "Look Out For Mr. Stork". But the biggest mistake was what they did with "Pink Elephants on Parade" In the original film, Dumbo accidentally drinks some champagne & gets drunk. He then blows bubbles & the bubbles take shape & thus begins one of the greatest scenes in Disney history. The bubbles take the shape of dancing, skating & tromping elephants. The scene is a nightmare & probably scared some kids in the day. The song itself is both fun & creepy. This should be perfect Tim Burton stuff, but in this film, it is not. In this film, circus performers are creating giant bubbles & somehow they are taking the shape of the elephants. In fact, they're copies of the elephants (and camel) from the original film. The song plays, but again, no lyrics. It's also not very well directed. Instead of looking like a nightmare, they keep cutting to Dumbo, watching the performers, with a smile.
And that brings me to another problem. Tim Burton. Like most Tim Burton movies, it looks fantastic, but it's just boring. The story is boring & unoriginal (Free Willy anyone?) I didn't get to like any of the human characters to care. They kind of just go through the motions. Dumbo himself lacks character & I never really felt for him.
I know Disney is set on remaking their classics & I haven't seen any before (and probably will not see anymore after this one). It breaks my heart to see Disney reduced to this sort of thing. I'll stick with the originals, thank you.
The first & main problem of the film is the most obvious. The focus on the human characters over the animal characters. There are no talking animals in this one. Sure, Dumbo didn't talk, but he had Timothy mouse with him to speak for him. There's no stork, the bully elephants are gone, even the racist, but very entertaining crows are completely gone.
Second problem: Some of the music from the original film is here, but instrumental versions. Only "Baby Mine" is sung. We hear a clip of "Casey Jr." at the beginning. At the very end of the credits, we hear a bit of "When I See a Elephant Fly", but no "Look Out For Mr. Stork". But the biggest mistake was what they did with "Pink Elephants on Parade" In the original film, Dumbo accidentally drinks some champagne & gets drunk. He then blows bubbles & the bubbles take shape & thus begins one of the greatest scenes in Disney history. The bubbles take the shape of dancing, skating & tromping elephants. The scene is a nightmare & probably scared some kids in the day. The song itself is both fun & creepy. This should be perfect Tim Burton stuff, but in this film, it is not. In this film, circus performers are creating giant bubbles & somehow they are taking the shape of the elephants. In fact, they're copies of the elephants (and camel) from the original film. The song plays, but again, no lyrics. It's also not very well directed. Instead of looking like a nightmare, they keep cutting to Dumbo, watching the performers, with a smile.
And that brings me to another problem. Tim Burton. Like most Tim Burton movies, it looks fantastic, but it's just boring. The story is boring & unoriginal (Free Willy anyone?) I didn't get to like any of the human characters to care. They kind of just go through the motions. Dumbo himself lacks character & I never really felt for him.
I know Disney is set on remaking their classics & I haven't seen any before (and probably will not see anymore after this one). It breaks my heart to see Disney reduced to this sort of thing. I'll stick with the originals, thank you.
Darren (1599 KP) rated After Earth (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: On paper this is a very good idea for a story, but it gets put together so badly it feels messy and confusing from start to finish. The idea that only two people that survive are father and son is a bit farfetched too. The biggest flaw I see is that Kitai is meant to be trained and thinks he is ready but as soon as he is out in the field he makes mistake after mistake even with the so called best helping him through the situations. If I was to give the mark on just how the story unfolds it would only get a 2 but I like the idea and with better performers it could work. (5/10)
Actor Review: Jaden Smith – Kitai trained to become a soldier against creatures that sense fear but doesn’t seem to stop panicking. Poor performance in this film it clearly is too much too soon for the young man. Poor Performance Award, Miscasted Award (4/10)
jaden
Actor Review: Will Smith – Cypher the injured father who spends most of the film telling his son what to do and shouting because he doesn’t follow the instructions. Remember when Will Smith was a selling point for any movie, well this time he just sold out, gets the career back on track and stop working for money. Pay Check Performance Award (2/10)
will
Director Review: M. Night Shyamalan – You have to give this guy credit for being able to create an unusual world but this isn’t his written work, he creates some good scenes but still expect better. (5/10)
Action: Lacklustre action throughout. (5/10)
Adventure: It could have been a great adventure film. It is not. (5/10)
Sci-Fi: With the world creature it is a interesting look at the future. (7/10)
Special Effects: Some good but mostly poor CGI effects. (5/10)
Chemistry: The awkward chemistry between father and son tries to shine but fails. (6/10)
Believability: Anything could happen the future but this is too much to imagine. (1/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Settings: Earth in the future is an interesting setting and creates some atmosphere but it could have easily been in a normal jungle with real animals. (5/10)
Suggestion: This is poor it will most likely go down in Will Smith’s career as his worst film. (Avoid)
Best Part: The final battle is you make it that far
Worst Part: The first hour is boring.
Action Scene Of The Film: The final battle
Kill Of The Film: The final creature
Oscar Chances: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Overall: Terrible sci-fi thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/12/02/after-earth-2013/
Actor Review: Jaden Smith – Kitai trained to become a soldier against creatures that sense fear but doesn’t seem to stop panicking. Poor performance in this film it clearly is too much too soon for the young man. Poor Performance Award, Miscasted Award (4/10)
jaden
Actor Review: Will Smith – Cypher the injured father who spends most of the film telling his son what to do and shouting because he doesn’t follow the instructions. Remember when Will Smith was a selling point for any movie, well this time he just sold out, gets the career back on track and stop working for money. Pay Check Performance Award (2/10)
will
Director Review: M. Night Shyamalan – You have to give this guy credit for being able to create an unusual world but this isn’t his written work, he creates some good scenes but still expect better. (5/10)
Action: Lacklustre action throughout. (5/10)
Adventure: It could have been a great adventure film. It is not. (5/10)
Sci-Fi: With the world creature it is a interesting look at the future. (7/10)
Special Effects: Some good but mostly poor CGI effects. (5/10)
Chemistry: The awkward chemistry between father and son tries to shine but fails. (6/10)
Believability: Anything could happen the future but this is too much to imagine. (1/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Settings: Earth in the future is an interesting setting and creates some atmosphere but it could have easily been in a normal jungle with real animals. (5/10)
Suggestion: This is poor it will most likely go down in Will Smith’s career as his worst film. (Avoid)
Best Part: The final battle is you make it that far
Worst Part: The first hour is boring.
Action Scene Of The Film: The final battle
Kill Of The Film: The final creature
Oscar Chances: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Overall: Terrible sci-fi thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/12/02/after-earth-2013/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated How to Draw Anything in Books
Dec 17, 2018
Author/artist Mark Linley believes that anyone can learn to draw and inspires everyone to pick up a pencil and create a work of art. Unlike many ‘how to draw’ books – those that provide step by step visual aids but no further insight – Linley goes into a lot more written detail.
First of all an artist needs to be able to look properly. Without studying the subject or object properly, no one would be able to produce an accurate sketch. Starting with landscapes, Linley tells the reader how to and what to look for when beginning a drawing in order to get a basic outline. It is only after this is down on paper that specific details can be added.
Linley explains various methods of shading and line marks to give a suggestion of perspective, and emphasises that an illustration does not need to be 100% accurate – that is what cameras are for. After landscapes, Linley takes the reader/future artist through plants, animals, people and cartoons in a similar manner.
Each chapter provides the reader with a few assignments to undertake based on what they have read, or the example illustrations. Many of these tasks are to copy Linley’s own examples, however he stresses that the outcome does not need to – or rather should not – look exactly like his. Each artist needs to develop their own style.
I found <i>How To Draw Anything</i> a lot more useful than the ever popular step-by-step guides that most people gravitate to. In those types of books we are NOT taught to draw, we are taught to copy. You may be able to accurately draw the same cat as the artist/author of the book, but you would not know where to start when face with a real life cat. Linley tells us what to look out for and where to start in these situations – you feel like you are actually learning something.
Mark Linley comes across as a humorous individual – his writing is full of puns and quips, intending to make the reader smile or laugh out loud, thus making them feel more relaxed about the subject. Linley does not only attempt to teach people how to draw, he tries to make each of us feel more comfortable about our abilities and encourages us to keep on trying.
Before reading this book I had already begun developing my own illustration style, however I gave a few of Linley’s assignments a try (see <a href="https://hazelstainer.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/how-to-draw-anything-a-review/">here</a>;). I am pleased with my outcomes and feel inspired to try more landscape drawings in the future.
First of all an artist needs to be able to look properly. Without studying the subject or object properly, no one would be able to produce an accurate sketch. Starting with landscapes, Linley tells the reader how to and what to look for when beginning a drawing in order to get a basic outline. It is only after this is down on paper that specific details can be added.
Linley explains various methods of shading and line marks to give a suggestion of perspective, and emphasises that an illustration does not need to be 100% accurate – that is what cameras are for. After landscapes, Linley takes the reader/future artist through plants, animals, people and cartoons in a similar manner.
Each chapter provides the reader with a few assignments to undertake based on what they have read, or the example illustrations. Many of these tasks are to copy Linley’s own examples, however he stresses that the outcome does not need to – or rather should not – look exactly like his. Each artist needs to develop their own style.
I found <i>How To Draw Anything</i> a lot more useful than the ever popular step-by-step guides that most people gravitate to. In those types of books we are NOT taught to draw, we are taught to copy. You may be able to accurately draw the same cat as the artist/author of the book, but you would not know where to start when face with a real life cat. Linley tells us what to look out for and where to start in these situations – you feel like you are actually learning something.
Mark Linley comes across as a humorous individual – his writing is full of puns and quips, intending to make the reader smile or laugh out loud, thus making them feel more relaxed about the subject. Linley does not only attempt to teach people how to draw, he tries to make each of us feel more comfortable about our abilities and encourages us to keep on trying.
Before reading this book I had already begun developing my own illustration style, however I gave a few of Linley’s assignments a try (see <a href="https://hazelstainer.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/how-to-draw-anything-a-review/">here</a>;). I am pleased with my outcomes and feel inspired to try more landscape drawings in the future.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Splintered (Splintered, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b>I loved <i>Splintered</i>, even though this is such a peculiar book.</b>
As the descendant of Lewis Carroll's inspiration for <i>Alices Adventures in Wonderland</i>, Alyssa and all the females after Alice Liddell can hear the thoughts of plants and animals. In an attempt to stop the whispers, Alyssa collects bugs and plants and uses them for her art. She keeps it hidden from those around her, but deep down she knows that she'll eventually be in an asylum like her mother. To fix the madness running in her family, Alyssa has to journey down the rabbit hole Alice went and fix her mistakes.
<i>Splintered</i> is quite phenomenal – <b>the writing is extremely vivid</b> and doesn't stray too far from the original classic while the story is being set up. After the story is set up, Howard sends us down the rabbit hole with <b>a dark and grotesque twist of the original classic.</b> We have skeletal rabbits, carnivorous plants, a ghost from Alice's past that's out for vengeance, and other dark creatures that <b>makes Wonderland a complete irony of its name.</b>
But... but... <b>there's a love triangle.</b>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vCNbLv8rQAU/VcN_9G7BWAI/AAAAAAAAE0k/XoASwOo_DEA/s1600/giphy.gif"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/08/giphy-2.gif"; width="320" height="179" border="0" /></a></div>
<b>Jeb and Morpheus both have a history with Alyssa</b> – Morpheus just has a past with her in dreams while Jeb has a history with her in flesh and blood. None of them are absolute strangers to Alyssa. <b>They're both possessive and over-protective. They antagonize each other, have a few brawls here and there</b> throughout the story. By the end, <b>Alyssa chooses a side, but we might as well be back at square one</b> when Howard brings us back to the dark makings of Wonderland again in the sequel. There is no way Jeb and Morpheus won't be at each other's throats again.
I like neither of them. I don't like Jeb, I don't like Morpheus. I don't care they're hot – I just don't like them. I feel indifferent towards them and it could go on either a good route or bad route. Enough said on this love triangle.
<b>Simply put, I loved every aspect of <i>Splintered</i> and the dark adventure Howard takes us down the rabbit hole.</b> I just don't like the candidates of this love triangle.
Methinks Tim Burton and other horror directors doth approve of this retelling.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-splintered-by-ag-howard/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
As the descendant of Lewis Carroll's inspiration for <i>Alices Adventures in Wonderland</i>, Alyssa and all the females after Alice Liddell can hear the thoughts of plants and animals. In an attempt to stop the whispers, Alyssa collects bugs and plants and uses them for her art. She keeps it hidden from those around her, but deep down she knows that she'll eventually be in an asylum like her mother. To fix the madness running in her family, Alyssa has to journey down the rabbit hole Alice went and fix her mistakes.
<i>Splintered</i> is quite phenomenal – <b>the writing is extremely vivid</b> and doesn't stray too far from the original classic while the story is being set up. After the story is set up, Howard sends us down the rabbit hole with <b>a dark and grotesque twist of the original classic.</b> We have skeletal rabbits, carnivorous plants, a ghost from Alice's past that's out for vengeance, and other dark creatures that <b>makes Wonderland a complete irony of its name.</b>
But... but... <b>there's a love triangle.</b>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vCNbLv8rQAU/VcN_9G7BWAI/AAAAAAAAE0k/XoASwOo_DEA/s1600/giphy.gif"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/08/giphy-2.gif"; width="320" height="179" border="0" /></a></div>
<b>Jeb and Morpheus both have a history with Alyssa</b> – Morpheus just has a past with her in dreams while Jeb has a history with her in flesh and blood. None of them are absolute strangers to Alyssa. <b>They're both possessive and over-protective. They antagonize each other, have a few brawls here and there</b> throughout the story. By the end, <b>Alyssa chooses a side, but we might as well be back at square one</b> when Howard brings us back to the dark makings of Wonderland again in the sequel. There is no way Jeb and Morpheus won't be at each other's throats again.
I like neither of them. I don't like Jeb, I don't like Morpheus. I don't care they're hot – I just don't like them. I feel indifferent towards them and it could go on either a good route or bad route. Enough said on this love triangle.
<b>Simply put, I loved every aspect of <i>Splintered</i> and the dark adventure Howard takes us down the rabbit hole.</b> I just don't like the candidates of this love triangle.
Methinks Tim Burton and other horror directors doth approve of this retelling.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-splintered-by-ag-howard/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Happy Feet Two (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Mumble is back and dancing his way back into our hearts. Happy Feet Two is a follow up to the 2006 Academy Award winning movie, Happy Feet directed by George Miller. Mumble (Elijah Wood) is now married to Gloria (Alecia “PiNK” Moore, who replaced the late Brittany Murphy) and they have a son, Erik (Ava Acres).
Mumble struggles to help Erik with his insecurities and inability to find his own heart song and dance steps. Erik ends up running away from Emperorland with a couple of friends, following the love struck Ramon (Robin Williams). Unsuccessful in love within Mumble’s penguin community, Ramon decides to head back to Adelieland and falls for Carmen (Sophia Vergara) who, of course, plays hard to get. So begins Ramon’s hilarious attempts at trying to win Carmen’s affection. While on their adventure, Erik and company stumble across Sven (Hank Azaria), a puffin that is mistaken for a penguin who can fly. Erik becomes enamored with Sven’s ability to fly and attempts to follow in Sven’s footsteps.
Once Mumble has found the runaway chicks, he forces them to return to Emperorland. Upon their return to home, they find a landslide has caused an iceberg to shift and ends up trapping their colony with no way out. Mumble must find help before it’s too late. In flies the self-help guru and fraud Sven to come and teach the penguins how to fly. Meanwhile, other animals in peril are an elephant seal (Anthony Lapaglia) and a couple of codependent krill named Will (Brad Pitt) and Bill (Matt Damon) who realized that their only place in life is to provide sustenance for the whales. Unwilling to succumb to their fate, the delusional Will forces the terrified Bill to swim away from their swarm and become omnivores in an attempt to move up the food chain.
In the end all these stories tie together to show a strong sense of community among different species. I do believe George Miller seems to have taken more of a commercialized approach when creating this movie. Miller once again attempts to send an eco-message regarding global warming with Happy Feet Two. Unfortunately the sequel’s message does not create the same emotional and heartfelt impact as its predecessor. Miller focused more on entertaining and visuals and less on the actual storyline which was very choppy and quite odd at times.
The animators definitely give Pixar a run for their money with their amazing Antarctica scenery details, their incredible animal close-up shots, the undersea moments with the krill and spectacular action sequences. The movie may not have had the substance of the first movie; however it was definitely enjoyable to watch. There was lots of dancing, singing and great laugh-out-loud moments; an absolute visual delight.
Mumble struggles to help Erik with his insecurities and inability to find his own heart song and dance steps. Erik ends up running away from Emperorland with a couple of friends, following the love struck Ramon (Robin Williams). Unsuccessful in love within Mumble’s penguin community, Ramon decides to head back to Adelieland and falls for Carmen (Sophia Vergara) who, of course, plays hard to get. So begins Ramon’s hilarious attempts at trying to win Carmen’s affection. While on their adventure, Erik and company stumble across Sven (Hank Azaria), a puffin that is mistaken for a penguin who can fly. Erik becomes enamored with Sven’s ability to fly and attempts to follow in Sven’s footsteps.
Once Mumble has found the runaway chicks, he forces them to return to Emperorland. Upon their return to home, they find a landslide has caused an iceberg to shift and ends up trapping their colony with no way out. Mumble must find help before it’s too late. In flies the self-help guru and fraud Sven to come and teach the penguins how to fly. Meanwhile, other animals in peril are an elephant seal (Anthony Lapaglia) and a couple of codependent krill named Will (Brad Pitt) and Bill (Matt Damon) who realized that their only place in life is to provide sustenance for the whales. Unwilling to succumb to their fate, the delusional Will forces the terrified Bill to swim away from their swarm and become omnivores in an attempt to move up the food chain.
In the end all these stories tie together to show a strong sense of community among different species. I do believe George Miller seems to have taken more of a commercialized approach when creating this movie. Miller once again attempts to send an eco-message regarding global warming with Happy Feet Two. Unfortunately the sequel’s message does not create the same emotional and heartfelt impact as its predecessor. Miller focused more on entertaining and visuals and less on the actual storyline which was very choppy and quite odd at times.
The animators definitely give Pixar a run for their money with their amazing Antarctica scenery details, their incredible animal close-up shots, the undersea moments with the krill and spectacular action sequences. The movie may not have had the substance of the first movie; however it was definitely enjoyable to watch. There was lots of dancing, singing and great laugh-out-loud moments; an absolute visual delight.
Bo Burnham recommended Raw (2017) in Movies (curated)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Life Of Pi (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Ang Lee has directed some very artistic and emotionally charged films in his career and his new movie, Life of Pi is certainly no exception. But can his take on Yann Martel’s 2001 novel of the same name live up to his usual high standards?
In short, the answer is a resounding yes. From the stunning special effects and beautiful acting to the heart-warming story, it captivates from beginning to end like no other film released this year.
The film begins with a pet hate of mine, the credits. I always think a movie that starts with its credits is usually a huge let-down but something was different here, as soon as the brilliantly filmed names flash across the screen, I knew this film was going to be spectacular, just how spectacular however, I was not prepared for.
The story is, essentially what the title says it is, the life of a boy called Pi and his extraordinary journey from childhood, through adolescence and finally into adulthood. It seems quite simple and perhaps nothing too innovative or different, but the way Lee has captured the magic of the novel really does shine through on screen.
In the present day, Rafe Spall plays a budding writer searching for inspiration for his next big book. He comes across Irrfan Khan who plays the adult Pi and has an unbelievable story to tell. So, as he begins to narrate this incredible journey, the viewer is transported to when Pi was a boy.
It’s true that the film takes a while to get going and the scenes in Pi’s native India are perhaps the most testing of the entire film. The momentum is built up slowly as the boy travels through school life whilst his family run a small zoo in their hometown. Alas, the perfection of his childhood is ruined when his entire family decide to relocate to Canada due to an economic crisis. They are packed onto a tanker with the zoo animals on-board and begin the journey to their new life.
Whilst on the last leg of their journey, their ship is ravaged by a severe storm and Pi’s family is lost, along with most of the zoo animals and, in a scene that even betters the emotionally charged sinking in Titanic and the CGI packed sinking in Poseidon, their tanker is lost to the ocean.
Thankfully he survives, along with an injured zebra, a naughty hyena and a motherly orangutan in a small life-boat. It’s safe to say that the zebra and ape don’t last too long on-board a ship with a hyena and they are picked off as lunch. However, also sailing with them is Richard Parker, a Bengal tiger and he forms the basis of the film, along with Pi. At first, after Richard Parker makes light work of the hyena, the relationship between Pi and his new shipmate is somewhat strained, a constant battle between who is going to eat who and the only sensible option is for Pi to live on separate raft tied to the life-boat.
However, a few days pass and finally they can share a boat, albeit after a couple of amusing scenes involving urine and some flying fish.
Richard Parker is a beautiful animal to say the least, a mixture of live action tigers, CGI animation and animatronics really brings him to life, which is good considering he is the only other character in the film. This is where Ang Lee’s brilliance as a director shines, bringing warmth and heart to a character that is not only not real, but an animal, without the ability to talk and share feelings. Credit must also be given to newcomer Suraj Sharma who plays Pi Patel absolutely brilliantly. I simply could not believe this was his first big acting role; his performance is nothing short of stunning.
Then there are the special effects and 3D. Everything is a wonder to behold and the 3D is a help in enjoying the film, rather than a hindrance which it continues to be in other movies. There are two scenes in particular which really stand out, including a lot of jellyfish and a few thousand meerkats. I won’t say anything else, as they need to be seen to be believed.
Moreover, in the depths of this film lies a huge emotional core, the story of a boy and his ‘pet’ and the perils they face, the togetherness they bring to one another is touching to say the least and let’s just say there were more than a few sniffles coming from the rows behind me in the cinema. However, it is more than just a story of companionship; there is a deep religious message about believing in god even if he seems to not be there 100% of the time. Whether or not you choose to read into this is your decision, but it’s there throughout.
Life of Pi is something really special, a magical journey that needs to be seen to be believed. Very rarely, a film comes along that touches your heart, your soul and your head and this is one of those films. Everything from the performances of all the actors, the beautiful recreation of Richard Parker and stunning special effects make this film as revolutionary as Avatar was in 2009. It is not only the best film of 2012; it is one of the best films ever made. Please, I urge all of you who read this, go see it, and witness history in the making.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/12/22/life-of-pi-review-2012/
In short, the answer is a resounding yes. From the stunning special effects and beautiful acting to the heart-warming story, it captivates from beginning to end like no other film released this year.
The film begins with a pet hate of mine, the credits. I always think a movie that starts with its credits is usually a huge let-down but something was different here, as soon as the brilliantly filmed names flash across the screen, I knew this film was going to be spectacular, just how spectacular however, I was not prepared for.
The story is, essentially what the title says it is, the life of a boy called Pi and his extraordinary journey from childhood, through adolescence and finally into adulthood. It seems quite simple and perhaps nothing too innovative or different, but the way Lee has captured the magic of the novel really does shine through on screen.
In the present day, Rafe Spall plays a budding writer searching for inspiration for his next big book. He comes across Irrfan Khan who plays the adult Pi and has an unbelievable story to tell. So, as he begins to narrate this incredible journey, the viewer is transported to when Pi was a boy.
It’s true that the film takes a while to get going and the scenes in Pi’s native India are perhaps the most testing of the entire film. The momentum is built up slowly as the boy travels through school life whilst his family run a small zoo in their hometown. Alas, the perfection of his childhood is ruined when his entire family decide to relocate to Canada due to an economic crisis. They are packed onto a tanker with the zoo animals on-board and begin the journey to their new life.
Whilst on the last leg of their journey, their ship is ravaged by a severe storm and Pi’s family is lost, along with most of the zoo animals and, in a scene that even betters the emotionally charged sinking in Titanic and the CGI packed sinking in Poseidon, their tanker is lost to the ocean.
Thankfully he survives, along with an injured zebra, a naughty hyena and a motherly orangutan in a small life-boat. It’s safe to say that the zebra and ape don’t last too long on-board a ship with a hyena and they are picked off as lunch. However, also sailing with them is Richard Parker, a Bengal tiger and he forms the basis of the film, along with Pi. At first, after Richard Parker makes light work of the hyena, the relationship between Pi and his new shipmate is somewhat strained, a constant battle between who is going to eat who and the only sensible option is for Pi to live on separate raft tied to the life-boat.
However, a few days pass and finally they can share a boat, albeit after a couple of amusing scenes involving urine and some flying fish.
Richard Parker is a beautiful animal to say the least, a mixture of live action tigers, CGI animation and animatronics really brings him to life, which is good considering he is the only other character in the film. This is where Ang Lee’s brilliance as a director shines, bringing warmth and heart to a character that is not only not real, but an animal, without the ability to talk and share feelings. Credit must also be given to newcomer Suraj Sharma who plays Pi Patel absolutely brilliantly. I simply could not believe this was his first big acting role; his performance is nothing short of stunning.
Then there are the special effects and 3D. Everything is a wonder to behold and the 3D is a help in enjoying the film, rather than a hindrance which it continues to be in other movies. There are two scenes in particular which really stand out, including a lot of jellyfish and a few thousand meerkats. I won’t say anything else, as they need to be seen to be believed.
Moreover, in the depths of this film lies a huge emotional core, the story of a boy and his ‘pet’ and the perils they face, the togetherness they bring to one another is touching to say the least and let’s just say there were more than a few sniffles coming from the rows behind me in the cinema. However, it is more than just a story of companionship; there is a deep religious message about believing in god even if he seems to not be there 100% of the time. Whether or not you choose to read into this is your decision, but it’s there throughout.
Life of Pi is something really special, a magical journey that needs to be seen to be believed. Very rarely, a film comes along that touches your heart, your soul and your head and this is one of those films. Everything from the performances of all the actors, the beautiful recreation of Richard Parker and stunning special effects make this film as revolutionary as Avatar was in 2009. It is not only the best film of 2012; it is one of the best films ever made. Please, I urge all of you who read this, go see it, and witness history in the making.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/12/22/life-of-pi-review-2012/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, “The Shape of Water” arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!