Search
Stop Motion Studio Pro
Photo & Video and Education
App
Get Stop Motion Studio Pro, the world’s easiest app to get you into stop motion moviemaking today!...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Great Wall (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Exercising your Damons.
Millions of people watching the Oscars would have seen Jimmy Kimmel roasting poor Matt Damon as a part of their long running ‘feud’. At one point he points out that Matt gave up the leading role in “Manchester by the Sea” to star in a “Chinese ponytail movie” that “went on to lose $80 million at the box office”. “The Great Wall” is that movie!
So is it really that bad?
Well, it’s no “Manchester by the Sea” for sure. But I don’t think it’s quite the total turkey that critics have been labelling it as either. I went to see it on a Sunday afternoon, and approaching it as a matinee bit of frothy action is a good mental state to be in.
Matt Damon plays the ponytailed-wonder William, a European mercenary travelling in 11th Century China with his colleague Tovar (Pedro Pascal) in an attempt to determine the secrets of black powder – a secret well-guarded by the Chinese. Captured by the ‘New Order’ at the Great Wall and imprisoned there by General Shao (Hanyu Zhang), William earns the respect of Shao and his beautiful warrior second-in-command Lin Mae (Tian Jing) with his bowmanship. This is almost immediately put to use by the arrival (after 60 year’s absence – a funny thing, timing, isn’t it?) of hoards of vicious creatures called Taoties. (I thought they said Tauntauns initially, so was expecting some sort of Chinese/Star Wars crossover! But no.)
Taoties who scale the wall are defeated by William who poleaxes them. (This is an attempt at brilliant humour to anyone who has already seen the film – poleaxe…. get it? POLEaxe. Oh, never mind!) Despite being a mercenary at heart, William is torn between staying and helping Lin Mae fight the beasts and fleeing with Tovar, their new chum Ballard (Willem Dafoe) and their black powder loot. (I’m sure something about Lin Mae’s tight-fitting blue armour was influential in his decision).
This is an historic film in that although in recent years there has been cross-fertilization of Chinese actors into Western films for box-office reasons (for example, in the appalling “Independence Day: Resurgence” and the much better Damon vehicle “The Martian“) this was the first truly co-produced Chinese/Hollywood feature filmed entirely in China. It might also be the last given the film’s $150 million budget and the dismal box-office!
To start with some positives, you can rely on a Chinese-set film (the film location was Qingdao) to allow the use of an army of extras and – although a whole bunch of CGI was also no doubt used – some of the battles scenes are impressive. There is a stirring choral theme by Ramin Djawadi (best known for his TV themes for “Game of Thrones” and the brilliant “Westworld”) played over silk-screen painted end titles that just make for a beautiful combination. And Tian Jing as the heroine Lin Mae is not only stunningly good-looking but also injects some much needed acting talent into the cast, where most of those involved (including Damon himself) look like they would rather be somewhere else.
And some of the action scenes are rather fun in a ‘park your brain by the door’ sort of way, including (nonsensically) cute warrior girls high-diving off the wall on bungey ropes to near certain death. While the CGI monsters are of the (yawn) over-the-top LoTR variety, their ability to swarm like locusts at the Queen’s command is also quite entertainingly rendered.
Where the movie balloon comes crashing down to earth in flames though is with the story and the screenplay – all done by three different people each, which is NEVER a good sign.
The story (by Max Brooks (“World War Z”), Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz (both on “The Last Samurai”) is plain nonsensical at times. No spoilers here, but the transition from “wall under siege” to “wall not under siege” gives the word ‘clunky’ a bad name. As another absurdity, the “New Order” seem amazed how William was able to slay one of the creatures (thanks to the poleaxing ‘McGuffin’ previously referenced) but then throughout the rest of the film he slays creatures left right and centre (McGuffin-less) through just the use of a spear or an arrow! Bonkers.
Things get worse when you add words to the actions. The screenplay by Carlo Bernard and Doug Miro (both “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”) and Tony Gilroy (Tony Gilroy? Surely not he of all the “Bourne” films and “Rogue One” fame? The very same!) has a reading age of about an 8 year old. It feels like it has been translated into Chinese and then back again to English with Google Translate. “Is that the best you can do?” asks Tovar to William at one point. I was thinking exactly the same thing.
The combination of the cinematography and the special effects have the unfortunate effect of giving the film the veneer of a video game, but this is one where your kid-brother has stolen the controls and refuses to give them back to you.
Having had the great thrill of visiting a section of The Great Wall near Beijing, I can confirm that it is an astonishing engineering masterpiece that has to be seen to be truly believed. It ranks as one of the genuine wonders of the world. The same can not be said of this movie. Early teens might enjoy it as a mindless action flick. But otherwise best avoided until it emerges on a raining Sunday afternoon on the TV.
So is it really that bad?
Well, it’s no “Manchester by the Sea” for sure. But I don’t think it’s quite the total turkey that critics have been labelling it as either. I went to see it on a Sunday afternoon, and approaching it as a matinee bit of frothy action is a good mental state to be in.
Matt Damon plays the ponytailed-wonder William, a European mercenary travelling in 11th Century China with his colleague Tovar (Pedro Pascal) in an attempt to determine the secrets of black powder – a secret well-guarded by the Chinese. Captured by the ‘New Order’ at the Great Wall and imprisoned there by General Shao (Hanyu Zhang), William earns the respect of Shao and his beautiful warrior second-in-command Lin Mae (Tian Jing) with his bowmanship. This is almost immediately put to use by the arrival (after 60 year’s absence – a funny thing, timing, isn’t it?) of hoards of vicious creatures called Taoties. (I thought they said Tauntauns initially, so was expecting some sort of Chinese/Star Wars crossover! But no.)
Taoties who scale the wall are defeated by William who poleaxes them. (This is an attempt at brilliant humour to anyone who has already seen the film – poleaxe…. get it? POLEaxe. Oh, never mind!) Despite being a mercenary at heart, William is torn between staying and helping Lin Mae fight the beasts and fleeing with Tovar, their new chum Ballard (Willem Dafoe) and their black powder loot. (I’m sure something about Lin Mae’s tight-fitting blue armour was influential in his decision).
This is an historic film in that although in recent years there has been cross-fertilization of Chinese actors into Western films for box-office reasons (for example, in the appalling “Independence Day: Resurgence” and the much better Damon vehicle “The Martian“) this was the first truly co-produced Chinese/Hollywood feature filmed entirely in China. It might also be the last given the film’s $150 million budget and the dismal box-office!
To start with some positives, you can rely on a Chinese-set film (the film location was Qingdao) to allow the use of an army of extras and – although a whole bunch of CGI was also no doubt used – some of the battles scenes are impressive. There is a stirring choral theme by Ramin Djawadi (best known for his TV themes for “Game of Thrones” and the brilliant “Westworld”) played over silk-screen painted end titles that just make for a beautiful combination. And Tian Jing as the heroine Lin Mae is not only stunningly good-looking but also injects some much needed acting talent into the cast, where most of those involved (including Damon himself) look like they would rather be somewhere else.
And some of the action scenes are rather fun in a ‘park your brain by the door’ sort of way, including (nonsensically) cute warrior girls high-diving off the wall on bungey ropes to near certain death. While the CGI monsters are of the (yawn) over-the-top LoTR variety, their ability to swarm like locusts at the Queen’s command is also quite entertainingly rendered.
Where the movie balloon comes crashing down to earth in flames though is with the story and the screenplay – all done by three different people each, which is NEVER a good sign.
The story (by Max Brooks (“World War Z”), Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz (both on “The Last Samurai”) is plain nonsensical at times. No spoilers here, but the transition from “wall under siege” to “wall not under siege” gives the word ‘clunky’ a bad name. As another absurdity, the “New Order” seem amazed how William was able to slay one of the creatures (thanks to the poleaxing ‘McGuffin’ previously referenced) but then throughout the rest of the film he slays creatures left right and centre (McGuffin-less) through just the use of a spear or an arrow! Bonkers.
Things get worse when you add words to the actions. The screenplay by Carlo Bernard and Doug Miro (both “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”) and Tony Gilroy (Tony Gilroy? Surely not he of all the “Bourne” films and “Rogue One” fame? The very same!) has a reading age of about an 8 year old. It feels like it has been translated into Chinese and then back again to English with Google Translate. “Is that the best you can do?” asks Tovar to William at one point. I was thinking exactly the same thing.
The combination of the cinematography and the special effects have the unfortunate effect of giving the film the veneer of a video game, but this is one where your kid-brother has stolen the controls and refuses to give them back to you.
Having had the great thrill of visiting a section of The Great Wall near Beijing, I can confirm that it is an astonishing engineering masterpiece that has to be seen to be truly believed. It ranks as one of the genuine wonders of the world. The same can not be said of this movie. Early teens might enjoy it as a mindless action flick. But otherwise best avoided until it emerges on a raining Sunday afternoon on the TV.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020 (Updated Jan 6, 2020)
F*ck Off Hittler!
Jo Jo Rabbit while by no means a bad movie its just one that I think would of worked better as a short instead. Think Son Of Rambow meets Wes Anderson and Jo Jo sits somewhere in between, its not bad but its also not greatness either. Containing way more serious drama and a much darker tone than the trailer has you believe what I found most interesting of all were the bleakest parts of the story which hit home way more than the comedy side. I just felt the humour took away from the films more serious messages of manipulation and the mind poluting of the naive. A good job is done of showing how fragile, young and inocent minds are easily lead astray/influenced by propaganda, stories, lies, the spread of hatred and how the excitement of holding a weapon, fighting in a war or wearing a uniform almost takes away from the overall bigger picture for them as children. Most of these kids see probably grew up without a dad as a role model so seeing hittler praised by all, hearing cool fables about him and seeing him on tv/posters to them at that age is almost like how kids are today with superheros, then to think thats actually what probably happened sends chills up your spine in horror. Sadly these scenes are always dampened with comedy killing the impact of them for me and while I do get what type of film its going for I think id rather of just seen a movie on the darker stuff. Acting is great especially by the boy playing Jo Jo however accents do slip constantly all round again breaking the illusion. Couple this with a middle act that I really struggled with losing intrest frequently and looking at my watch. While it does have the heart and certainly the depth in places I cant help but feel really let down by this movie and sadly I left wanting more. Far too serious for teens and not serious enough for adults Jo Jo Rabbit is an alright watch with definitely a few good messages at its muddled heart 'love will always defeat hate' and 'even if you are ugly on skin you still can be lovely from within' so I guess its not all bad.
ClareR (5721 KP) rated The Testaments (The Handmaid's Tale #2) in Books
Sep 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 23, 2019)
This was well worth the wait!
The Testaments is the book that many people have been waiting for since the TV series first aired (me!). It seems that everyone likes a sequel. Well, most people anyway, because for every person that I’ve seen rave about how good this book is, I’ve seen as many say that it doesn’t live up to the original. Personally, I’m glad that it’s not written in the same style as the first book. The Handmaid’s Tale was written at a different time. 1985 is a lifetime away. We were entering a time then, where women felt hope for the future - equality seemed achievable. I’m really not so sure that we feel the same way in 2019. Certain developed countries are making it more difficult for women to have abortions, more US states are making it illegal, female children are still being married to adult males in many developing countries; climate change is having a huge impact on the poorest countries and as Margaret Atwood has said, with any disasters, natural or otherwise, it’s always the women and children who suffer the worst deprivation. So Margaret Atwood had all of these things at her disposal when she wrote The Testaments. Everything that happens to the women in Gilead has happened, or is happening, somewhere in the world.
The Testaments is written from three different perspectives. I was delighted to see the return of Aunt Lydia - and she seems to have hit her stride. She’s much more sure of herself here, even though she is still having to watch her back. Gilead may be ultra-religious, but that doesn’t stop the literal back-stabbing. Aunt Lydia shows just how high the poison has spread. We see more than the subservient Aunt that she seems to be in front of The Eyes, and her backstory is fascinating.
Then there is Agnes, a child brought up in Gilead in a high profile family. We see how girls are ‘educated’ in a world where women and girls aren’t allowed to read and write. Agnes is contrasted with Daisy, a teenaged girl living in Canada, who was smuggled out of Gilead by her mother as a baby. There are obviously some pretty big differences. I don’t actually want to say too much, because I hate having my own reading experience ruined.
I loved this book. I really liked that by the end we couldn’t actually be sure whether Aunt Lydia’s records were genuine or fabricated. The symposium at the end (just as there was at the end of The Handmaid’s Tale) casts doubt on the authenticity of the papers that were found. Just like any written records found in this situation, historians have to be open minded about who could have written them. So we’re left wondering at the end whether what we’ve just read is actually what happened.
So does this deserve to be on the Booker Prize 2019 shortlist? Yes, I think it does. I believe it’s well written, I finished feeling thoroughly entertained and emotionally exhausted! I liked the open end too. Whether Atwood does anything with this open ending is up to her really, isn’t it. But I won’t be disappointed if she decides to leave the world of Gilead here. This book is a great way to end the story.
The Testaments is written from three different perspectives. I was delighted to see the return of Aunt Lydia - and she seems to have hit her stride. She’s much more sure of herself here, even though she is still having to watch her back. Gilead may be ultra-religious, but that doesn’t stop the literal back-stabbing. Aunt Lydia shows just how high the poison has spread. We see more than the subservient Aunt that she seems to be in front of The Eyes, and her backstory is fascinating.
Then there is Agnes, a child brought up in Gilead in a high profile family. We see how girls are ‘educated’ in a world where women and girls aren’t allowed to read and write. Agnes is contrasted with Daisy, a teenaged girl living in Canada, who was smuggled out of Gilead by her mother as a baby. There are obviously some pretty big differences. I don’t actually want to say too much, because I hate having my own reading experience ruined.
I loved this book. I really liked that by the end we couldn’t actually be sure whether Aunt Lydia’s records were genuine or fabricated. The symposium at the end (just as there was at the end of The Handmaid’s Tale) casts doubt on the authenticity of the papers that were found. Just like any written records found in this situation, historians have to be open minded about who could have written them. So we’re left wondering at the end whether what we’ve just read is actually what happened.
So does this deserve to be on the Booker Prize 2019 shortlist? Yes, I think it does. I believe it’s well written, I finished feeling thoroughly entertained and emotionally exhausted! I liked the open end too. Whether Atwood does anything with this open ending is up to her really, isn’t it. But I won’t be disappointed if she decides to leave the world of Gilead here. This book is a great way to end the story.
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated The Hunger Games in Books
Jan 2, 2019
I finished this book for the second time around 15 minutes ago, and I’m still missing being part of its world. Yes, it’s that good. Actually, I read the whole book just today. The first time I read it, just before the film came out, I’d followed a friend’s recommendation to read the books first, and devoured all three in as many days. I then had to give up my Kindle for a few days so that my friend could read it, and she was just as enamoured. I know my American cousins loved it too. Safe to say, it was very popular in my circle of friends! I have heard a couple of dismissive comments saying it’s a rip-off of Battle Royale, but I haven’t read that yet, so I’ll reserve judgement.
Set in post-apocalyptic America, now known as Panem, the book very quickly sets Katniss, the protagonist, up as a fiercely protective older sister. <spoiler>So protective, she learnt to hunt, barter on the black market and generally help her family survive when their father dies and their mother is overcome by depression. So protective, she volunteers in her sister’s place for the practically suicidal Hunger Games.</spoiler> It’s not long into the book that the reaping takes place, but by the time it does, the reader knows all they need to about who Katniss is, where she’s coming from, and also sets the scene for her dilemma over the coming books. I was rooting for her all the way, and the way Suzanne Collins writes from Katniss’s perspective is extremely effective. I was constantly sympathising with her, while at the same time simply admiring how the cogs in her mind worked in helping her to survive. None of it seemed contrived.
I’m a really big fan of dystopias anyway, but I loved what this plot was based on. Collins has said that her idea for The Hunger Games came from reality TV, and what might happen if it got warped. In a society where it’s almost impossible to avoid reality television, the plot is really contemporary, whilst also having a definite mix of Orwell’s Big Brother in there. Having also read the next two stories before, I know it gets a lot darker, but I’ll review those another time. <spoiler>In the TV context, it’s also really easy to see how anything that boosted ratings (the “star-crossed lovers”) would be extremely powerful. It took me a while to get this, but actually, being torn between Gale and Peeta is quite understandable, given the different extremes she knows both under. I suppose comparisons could be made, but it’s definitely no Twilight.</spoiler>
The pacing of the book is done brilliantly (hence why I’ve read it twice, both taking less than a day!). Collins controls the twists and turns of the plot as adeptly as the gamemakers. The main characters are really multi-faceted, and the important themes – action, politics, and yes, even love – all come out in sometimes unexpected places.
Having also seen the film, I’m really impressed with how well it translated across. Obviously, no film can ever compete with the level of detail and the reader’s own imagination in a book, but it was good. I can’t remember what I thought of casting at the time, but I must admit, I did see Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson in my mind when reading the book this time. This may come across as a backhanded compliment, but Jennifer Lawrence seems to have the right level of awkwardness/social unease in front of the cameras that I associated with Katniss, and also fits the book’s description.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Set in post-apocalyptic America, now known as Panem, the book very quickly sets Katniss, the protagonist, up as a fiercely protective older sister. <spoiler>So protective, she learnt to hunt, barter on the black market and generally help her family survive when their father dies and their mother is overcome by depression. So protective, she volunteers in her sister’s place for the practically suicidal Hunger Games.</spoiler> It’s not long into the book that the reaping takes place, but by the time it does, the reader knows all they need to about who Katniss is, where she’s coming from, and also sets the scene for her dilemma over the coming books. I was rooting for her all the way, and the way Suzanne Collins writes from Katniss’s perspective is extremely effective. I was constantly sympathising with her, while at the same time simply admiring how the cogs in her mind worked in helping her to survive. None of it seemed contrived.
I’m a really big fan of dystopias anyway, but I loved what this plot was based on. Collins has said that her idea for The Hunger Games came from reality TV, and what might happen if it got warped. In a society where it’s almost impossible to avoid reality television, the plot is really contemporary, whilst also having a definite mix of Orwell’s Big Brother in there. Having also read the next two stories before, I know it gets a lot darker, but I’ll review those another time. <spoiler>In the TV context, it’s also really easy to see how anything that boosted ratings (the “star-crossed lovers”) would be extremely powerful. It took me a while to get this, but actually, being torn between Gale and Peeta is quite understandable, given the different extremes she knows both under. I suppose comparisons could be made, but it’s definitely no Twilight.</spoiler>
The pacing of the book is done brilliantly (hence why I’ve read it twice, both taking less than a day!). Collins controls the twists and turns of the plot as adeptly as the gamemakers. The main characters are really multi-faceted, and the important themes – action, politics, and yes, even love – all come out in sometimes unexpected places.
Having also seen the film, I’m really impressed with how well it translated across. Obviously, no film can ever compete with the level of detail and the reader’s own imagination in a book, but it was good. I can’t remember what I thought of casting at the time, but I must admit, I did see Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson in my mind when reading the book this time. This may come across as a backhanded compliment, but Jennifer Lawrence seems to have the right level of awkwardness/social unease in front of the cameras that I associated with Katniss, and also fits the book’s description.
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Amanda (96 KP) rated Ready Player One in Books
Mar 18, 2019
Why in the world did it take me this long to read this book? I could seriously kick myself! I haven't seen the movie yet, I'm not entirely sure I want to after reading this book. I don't think any movie could do it justice. Yes, I liked this book that much.
Imagine a world where the world has kind of gone to pieces and most of the time you want to escape the harsh reality. A man invented a virtual reality called OASIS and before his passing, he stated that there is a hidden Easter egg in the OASIS and whomever finds it, has COMPLETE control of the OASIS and his fortune. It's been several years and NOBODY has been able to find the egg, or even come close to it.
The entire story is told from Wade's point of view. In reality, he's known as Wade, in OASIS he is Parzivel. The creator of OASIS is known to be a huge fan of 80's style; music, movies, tv shows, you name it, he was a fan. Wade goes through all of these shows and movies to get some sort of clue to find out what and where the egg is located. One day, he figures out the first clue and winds up being the first name on the score board.
The idea of going to a virtual school sounded like a really cool idea. From the way it's described in the book, it sounds like a much more effective way to actually learn in a classroom. I think with the way technology keeps advancing, we may very well be on our way to going that route.
I loved all of the 80's references throughout the book. I'm not an 80's child, but I've been told I'm old soul. Like, I'm a reincarnated person who was born in the 30's because I'm not really into the new shows or the new music. Mentions of Monty Python and the other TV shows that I've actually binge watched myself really brought out my inner nerd and it was enjoyable.
The only thing that made me lose a little respect for Wade is when he starts falling for another user named Art3mis. He has NO CLUE who this person is in real life, just her avatar. And in OASIS, the avatar is a blonde woman and Wade falls for her and spends as much time with her as possible. When Art3miss decides to cool it down with him, he kind of acts like a puppy who had its treat taken away. I know he's a kid who just graduated high school so having your first crush on someone really clouds your best judgment, but I found his infatuation with Art3mis rather annoying and I almost wanted to yell at my book and hope he hears me.
Am I the only one who's felt that way?
In the end, I'm rooting for Wade to find all these keys and reach the gates before someone else does. There's another company who actually specifically hires people to find this egg. This company will start charging people to use OASIS and actually give people limited access, no, we don't want that.
The book as a whole was excellent. It caught my attention in the beginning, and even though I was a bit annoyed with Wade, I still WANTED to finish this story. I WANTED to go through the OASIS journey with him and help him, encourage him, to continue and find that egg and help everybody cope with reality, with or without OASIS. If you've seen the movie, read the book. I guarantee that the movie was not able to capture EVERYTHING with this story and you deserve to know EVERYTHING about WADE and his new friends in finding that egg.
Imagine a world where the world has kind of gone to pieces and most of the time you want to escape the harsh reality. A man invented a virtual reality called OASIS and before his passing, he stated that there is a hidden Easter egg in the OASIS and whomever finds it, has COMPLETE control of the OASIS and his fortune. It's been several years and NOBODY has been able to find the egg, or even come close to it.
The entire story is told from Wade's point of view. In reality, he's known as Wade, in OASIS he is Parzivel. The creator of OASIS is known to be a huge fan of 80's style; music, movies, tv shows, you name it, he was a fan. Wade goes through all of these shows and movies to get some sort of clue to find out what and where the egg is located. One day, he figures out the first clue and winds up being the first name on the score board.
The idea of going to a virtual school sounded like a really cool idea. From the way it's described in the book, it sounds like a much more effective way to actually learn in a classroom. I think with the way technology keeps advancing, we may very well be on our way to going that route.
I loved all of the 80's references throughout the book. I'm not an 80's child, but I've been told I'm old soul. Like, I'm a reincarnated person who was born in the 30's because I'm not really into the new shows or the new music. Mentions of Monty Python and the other TV shows that I've actually binge watched myself really brought out my inner nerd and it was enjoyable.
The only thing that made me lose a little respect for Wade is when he starts falling for another user named Art3mis. He has NO CLUE who this person is in real life, just her avatar. And in OASIS, the avatar is a blonde woman and Wade falls for her and spends as much time with her as possible. When Art3miss decides to cool it down with him, he kind of acts like a puppy who had its treat taken away. I know he's a kid who just graduated high school so having your first crush on someone really clouds your best judgment, but I found his infatuation with Art3mis rather annoying and I almost wanted to yell at my book and hope he hears me.
Am I the only one who's felt that way?
In the end, I'm rooting for Wade to find all these keys and reach the gates before someone else does. There's another company who actually specifically hires people to find this egg. This company will start charging people to use OASIS and actually give people limited access, no, we don't want that.
The book as a whole was excellent. It caught my attention in the beginning, and even though I was a bit annoyed with Wade, I still WANTED to finish this story. I WANTED to go through the OASIS journey with him and help him, encourage him, to continue and find that egg and help everybody cope with reality, with or without OASIS. If you've seen the movie, read the book. I guarantee that the movie was not able to capture EVERYTHING with this story and you deserve to know EVERYTHING about WADE and his new friends in finding that egg.
p3anut (62 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Apr 11, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'm 33 and I saw the original pet semetary when I was about 10 on some cable channel like nbc or abc. Back in the 90's, tv was heavily edited. Even then it scared the shit out of me!
The 2019 just didn't give me that same vibe. Yes, I'm older and don't scare as easy. But I also get creeped out pretty easily when a movie does something right. And this movie didn't do to much right to chill me to my core.
Now that's not to say this movie was bad or awful in anyway. The pacing was very good. The twist that they showed us in the trailers was great and added to the later plot device. And even having Gage running towards the road as the truck came barreling towards Ellie made me think they were about to lose two kids. Hell even Lithgow was pretty stellar in his role. But this movie just tried too hard to top the original.
The wife's back story about Zelda should have stopped after she told what had happened to Zelda. They drug it out by giving her some PTSD bullshit that I didn't feel really fit into the story.
The guy that gets hit by a car (victor) and warns Louis about the dangers that are about to unfold was rushed and not as fleshed out as the character in the 90's film. And I don't mean to compare this to that film because it is it's own thing, but they could have tried to humanize him a little more that just a device plot.
Ellie being self aware that she had died and turning evil because of it was fucking creepy. And Everytime this girl had screen time you felt like she was back from the dead and completely changed. The scene where Ellie terrorizes Jud was pretty close to the original but with some twists and I thought that made it more enjoyable. especially since these characters seemed to think situations out better than typical horror movies.
The last twist was fantastic and I'm not going to spoil it. I didn't care for the ending. I thought it was very bleak and bland. And really didn't lead to what was going to happen now as a whole, not just Gage potentially dying.
Overall I really enjoyed the movie for what it was, a fun popcorn horror flick.
Have you seen it? What did you think of the movie?
The 2019 just didn't give me that same vibe. Yes, I'm older and don't scare as easy. But I also get creeped out pretty easily when a movie does something right. And this movie didn't do to much right to chill me to my core.
Now that's not to say this movie was bad or awful in anyway. The pacing was very good. The twist that they showed us in the trailers was great and added to the later plot device. And even having Gage running towards the road as the truck came barreling towards Ellie made me think they were about to lose two kids. Hell even Lithgow was pretty stellar in his role. But this movie just tried too hard to top the original.
The wife's back story about Zelda should have stopped after she told what had happened to Zelda. They drug it out by giving her some PTSD bullshit that I didn't feel really fit into the story.
The guy that gets hit by a car (victor) and warns Louis about the dangers that are about to unfold was rushed and not as fleshed out as the character in the 90's film. And I don't mean to compare this to that film because it is it's own thing, but they could have tried to humanize him a little more that just a device plot.
Ellie being self aware that she had died and turning evil because of it was fucking creepy. And Everytime this girl had screen time you felt like she was back from the dead and completely changed. The scene where Ellie terrorizes Jud was pretty close to the original but with some twists and I thought that made it more enjoyable. especially since these characters seemed to think situations out better than typical horror movies.
The last twist was fantastic and I'm not going to spoil it. I didn't care for the ending. I thought it was very bleak and bland. And really didn't lead to what was going to happen now as a whole, not just Gage potentially dying.
Overall I really enjoyed the movie for what it was, a fun popcorn horror flick.
Have you seen it? What did you think of the movie?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019) in Movies
Aug 28, 2019 (Updated Aug 28, 2019)
Well, that was a fun surprise!
While my youngest daughter was growing up, I watched a lot of Dora the Explorer on TV. She absolutely loved the show and its characters, its catchphrases and the music all ended up becoming a permanent fixture in my brain for a few years. When news broke of a live action movie, Dora and The Lost City of Gold, accompanied by a trailer and poster, I wasn't really sure what to make of it all. My daughter on the other hand, now aged 14, basically couldn't care less. But, when a succession of fairly positive reviews started coming through, including comparisons to Spy Kids and the classic Indiana Jones movies, I managed to convince her to come with me. And it's pretty fair to say, we both had a great time!
Kicking off with a seriously fun nostalgia trip for anyone who has seen more than their fair share of Dora episodes, the movie pretty much recreates the opening credits from the TV show. The song! Dora's talking backpack and map! And cousin Diego is there too!! But, it turns out Dora and Diego aren't actually just a couple of kids driving recklessly around the jungle in a jeep - they are in fact just using their imagination, driving a homemade cardboard vehicle at the jungle home where Dora lives with her parents.
10 years later and Dora hasn't really changed that much, enthusiastically exploring the jungle and communicating with all of the animals. When her parents (played by Michael Peña and Eva Longoria) decide to venture off in search of a lost city of gold, they pack Dora off to the big city where she joins Diego at high school. But Dora and her over friendly, extrovert ways prove to be a big embarrassment for cousin Diego, who has grown up to be a fairly normal, moody teenager, leaving behind his imaginative jungle childhood.
When her parents suddenly go missing one day, Dora enlists the help of Diego and a couple of unwitting fellow students to venture with her into the jungle in order to try and find them and the lost city of gold. What follows is an extremely enjoyable jungle adventure, complete with mysteries, puzzles to solve, and even bad guys too. Isabela Moner, who featured earlier this year as a troubled teenager in the brilliant Instant Family, is perfect as Dora as she brings the older version of the character to life. Her teen co stars all bring something different to the story too, and prove to be a real fun, mixed cast.
Throw in a poo song, an animated Dora scene brought on by breathing in hallucinogenic pollen and a catchy final song and dance number and Dora and the Lost City of Gold is the summer family movie you never knew you needed in your life!
Kicking off with a seriously fun nostalgia trip for anyone who has seen more than their fair share of Dora episodes, the movie pretty much recreates the opening credits from the TV show. The song! Dora's talking backpack and map! And cousin Diego is there too!! But, it turns out Dora and Diego aren't actually just a couple of kids driving recklessly around the jungle in a jeep - they are in fact just using their imagination, driving a homemade cardboard vehicle at the jungle home where Dora lives with her parents.
10 years later and Dora hasn't really changed that much, enthusiastically exploring the jungle and communicating with all of the animals. When her parents (played by Michael Peña and Eva Longoria) decide to venture off in search of a lost city of gold, they pack Dora off to the big city where she joins Diego at high school. But Dora and her over friendly, extrovert ways prove to be a big embarrassment for cousin Diego, who has grown up to be a fairly normal, moody teenager, leaving behind his imaginative jungle childhood.
When her parents suddenly go missing one day, Dora enlists the help of Diego and a couple of unwitting fellow students to venture with her into the jungle in order to try and find them and the lost city of gold. What follows is an extremely enjoyable jungle adventure, complete with mysteries, puzzles to solve, and even bad guys too. Isabela Moner, who featured earlier this year as a troubled teenager in the brilliant Instant Family, is perfect as Dora as she brings the older version of the character to life. Her teen co stars all bring something different to the story too, and prove to be a real fun, mixed cast.
Throw in a poo song, an animated Dora scene brought on by breathing in hallucinogenic pollen and a catchy final song and dance number and Dora and the Lost City of Gold is the summer family movie you never knew you needed in your life!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In 2009, writer/director by Tommy Wirkola gained a cult following with his Zombie splatter film “Dead Snow”. Hollywood took notice and he was awarded with a larger budget and bigger stars for his follow up film “Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters”. The film chronicles the fairytale brother and sister duo after they escaped the gingerbread house and started hunting down witches. Originally supposed to be released in 2012, the film was pushed back to a January 2013 release in hopes of generating more buzz on Jeremy Renner’s rising star. When the film was complete, Renner had yet to appear in last year’s films “The Avengers” and “The Bourne Legacy”. A good strategy, if the standard TV trailers did not make this movie look worse than it actually is.
I have to be honest. I went into this movie expecting it to be terrible. Personally I do not have much faith in Renner (Hansel) as a leading man. I know he is somewhat hot right now but to me he is best as a supporting role. I also have only seen Gemma Arterton (Gretel) in “Clash of the Titans” (2010) where she was nothing more than a pretty face in that lack luster film. Perhaps it was because of such low expectations that together they worked. They were both “bad ass” as the brother sister bounty hunters. Not spectacular performances or anything but easily entertaining and likeable performances.
The story follows the duo as they attempt to hunt down some missing children form a small village that is troubled by witches. Famke Janssen (Taken 2) leads the supporting cast as Leader of the witches who is trying to cast a spell that will make the witches stronger than ever. The three clash it out and that is basically the story.
From a stylistic standpoint fans of Wirkola’s films will not be disappointed. The dark and grim fairytale world he creates is charming and helps us fall into the fantasy. Furthermore this film has several gruesome scenes that are shockingly comical in the way they are over the top. At no point do they feel unnecessary for shock value, but rather they happen in a way that seems normal and plausible in the world we are shown on film. Additionally the pacing of this film is fast. There was not a dull moment as the 88 minute run time is one action or story driven transition to the next. Together these aspects help the film feel fun, lighthearted and surprisingly entertaining. Also the 3D effects help the film and do not seem distracting.
The finished product accomplishes something that other fast paced ridiculous action flicks do not. It keeps it simple. Tommy Wirkola shows his talent by keeping various stylistic factors and pacing together in a way that makes the simplistic story complete. Often times in films like this there comes a point where your suspended disbelief is tested beyond its limits. But that is not the case here. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters delivers an entertaining fast paced movie that the TV previews do not to justice. If you are a fan of zombies, vampires, witches or any other supernatural type characters then you will not want to miss this film.
I have to be honest. I went into this movie expecting it to be terrible. Personally I do not have much faith in Renner (Hansel) as a leading man. I know he is somewhat hot right now but to me he is best as a supporting role. I also have only seen Gemma Arterton (Gretel) in “Clash of the Titans” (2010) where she was nothing more than a pretty face in that lack luster film. Perhaps it was because of such low expectations that together they worked. They were both “bad ass” as the brother sister bounty hunters. Not spectacular performances or anything but easily entertaining and likeable performances.
The story follows the duo as they attempt to hunt down some missing children form a small village that is troubled by witches. Famke Janssen (Taken 2) leads the supporting cast as Leader of the witches who is trying to cast a spell that will make the witches stronger than ever. The three clash it out and that is basically the story.
From a stylistic standpoint fans of Wirkola’s films will not be disappointed. The dark and grim fairytale world he creates is charming and helps us fall into the fantasy. Furthermore this film has several gruesome scenes that are shockingly comical in the way they are over the top. At no point do they feel unnecessary for shock value, but rather they happen in a way that seems normal and plausible in the world we are shown on film. Additionally the pacing of this film is fast. There was not a dull moment as the 88 minute run time is one action or story driven transition to the next. Together these aspects help the film feel fun, lighthearted and surprisingly entertaining. Also the 3D effects help the film and do not seem distracting.
The finished product accomplishes something that other fast paced ridiculous action flicks do not. It keeps it simple. Tommy Wirkola shows his talent by keeping various stylistic factors and pacing together in a way that makes the simplistic story complete. Often times in films like this there comes a point where your suspended disbelief is tested beyond its limits. But that is not the case here. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters delivers an entertaining fast paced movie that the TV previews do not to justice. If you are a fan of zombies, vampires, witches or any other supernatural type characters then you will not want to miss this film.