Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Once Upon A Deadpool (Deadpool 2 PG-13 Version) (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
So you want to see a family friendly version of Deadpool 2? Well you're out of luck because after all their editing it didn't make it past the 12A certificate criteria and had to be released as a 15 again. It still deserved that 15, it wasn't exactly hiding it's sweary side very well, and the violence is still there, you just don't get splattered with as much blood.
The editing unfortunately leaves you with some obvious continuity errors. The one that bugged me the most was the scene where DP is shot through the hand. They've left out the CGI for the gaping hole but it appears later in the film.
But lets look at the extra content you get.
Fred Savage and DP cut into the film in a homage to The Princess Bride. It's an amusing addition and I really did enjoy the Matt Damon skit.
They also edited the Stan Lee mural to say RIP, it definitely made it stick out more as I completely missed it the first time I saw DP2 at the cinema.
We also got an extra three credit scenes. One before the existing ones and two after. I nearly left... I was convinced that the fourth one was the end and I stood up to leave just as the fifth one started, and someone shouted at me to sit down. I'm not even mad, I was shouting internally at myself too. I was so glad to have seen it. The end Stan Lee montage brought a tear to my eye and was horribly poignant footage.
Is it in any way an improvement on the original? Absolutely not. Was it worth watching at the cinema? Definitely, yes. The screen was packed with people who knew what they were getting and were just there to have fun. (Apart from the two people who left after about ten minutes... spoil-sports.) We laughed together like it was the first time we'd seen the film and it was a great experience. With tickets in our cinema currently £5 of free with your Unlimited card it was well worth seeing on the big screen for the experience.
I'm left actively annoyed now though because it'll probably be another DVD I have to buy. Really there is no way to make Deadpool family friendly without taking everything away that makes him so fun. The ideal scenario would have been to have the Fred Savage bits edited together with the relevant snippets of the film and had it as a 20 minutes extra when they released it to buy. That or create a MST3K style commentary track for the film where you just see DP silently miming actions to Savage while he's telling him the story and we're watching the film, then having DP physically pause the film when Savage asks him questions so that they can do the scenes. Okay, I'm calm again now.
What you should do
I don't know if they're going to release it to buy or stream, and it was a one hit wonder at the cinema so I'm not really sure what you'll be able to do about seeing it. Ultimately though it's probably just worth watching the original again in all it's sweary and bloody glory.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
From this adaptation I think I'd like to have the bleeping buzzer that Deadpool uses in the added scenes. That would really come in handy on a day to day basis.
The editing unfortunately leaves you with some obvious continuity errors. The one that bugged me the most was the scene where DP is shot through the hand. They've left out the CGI for the gaping hole but it appears later in the film.
But lets look at the extra content you get.
Fred Savage and DP cut into the film in a homage to The Princess Bride. It's an amusing addition and I really did enjoy the Matt Damon skit.
They also edited the Stan Lee mural to say RIP, it definitely made it stick out more as I completely missed it the first time I saw DP2 at the cinema.
We also got an extra three credit scenes. One before the existing ones and two after. I nearly left... I was convinced that the fourth one was the end and I stood up to leave just as the fifth one started, and someone shouted at me to sit down. I'm not even mad, I was shouting internally at myself too. I was so glad to have seen it. The end Stan Lee montage brought a tear to my eye and was horribly poignant footage.
Is it in any way an improvement on the original? Absolutely not. Was it worth watching at the cinema? Definitely, yes. The screen was packed with people who knew what they were getting and were just there to have fun. (Apart from the two people who left after about ten minutes... spoil-sports.) We laughed together like it was the first time we'd seen the film and it was a great experience. With tickets in our cinema currently £5 of free with your Unlimited card it was well worth seeing on the big screen for the experience.
I'm left actively annoyed now though because it'll probably be another DVD I have to buy. Really there is no way to make Deadpool family friendly without taking everything away that makes him so fun. The ideal scenario would have been to have the Fred Savage bits edited together with the relevant snippets of the film and had it as a 20 minutes extra when they released it to buy. That or create a MST3K style commentary track for the film where you just see DP silently miming actions to Savage while he's telling him the story and we're watching the film, then having DP physically pause the film when Savage asks him questions so that they can do the scenes. Okay, I'm calm again now.
What you should do
I don't know if they're going to release it to buy or stream, and it was a one hit wonder at the cinema so I'm not really sure what you'll be able to do about seeing it. Ultimately though it's probably just worth watching the original again in all it's sweary and bloody glory.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
From this adaptation I think I'd like to have the bleeping buzzer that Deadpool uses in the added scenes. That would really come in handy on a day to day basis.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Stories You Tell in Books
Jul 12, 2019
Private Investigator Roxane Weary and her brother, Andrew, are night owls, but it's still never good news when she gets a call from Andrew in the middle of the night. This time, Andrew tells her that he's just had the strangest visit from Addison Stowe, a young woman who used to work with him at the hotel where he tends bar. She seemed panicked and scared, begging to used Andrew's phone, and she disappeared almost as quickly as she arrived. At Andrew's pleading, Roxane starts looking for Addison, but she quickly realizes this is not a straightforward case. Soon the police are on Addison's trail--and Andrew's too. Add a dead cop to the mix, and it looks like Andrew could be mixed up in something serious.
"Clients hired me to find lots of things, and I took them all seriously--but people, most of all."
So, I won't lie. I have a particular affinity for one Roxane Weary, our sarcastic, intelligent, bisexual PI. This is the third book in Roxane's series, and I just love them all. You know how you can give your iPhone a name? Well, one of mine (I have one for work and one for personal use, okay) is named Roxane. This gritty PI has wormed her way into my heart. And I've said it before and I'll say it again--it's just so refreshing to have a bisexual character in mainstream fiction who is real. She's not a crazy person or a murderer, she's just a smart, complex character. The main character. And when Roxane is talking, it sounds like my own friends hanging out. It makes me happy.
"The state of straight people was troubling."
This book finds Roxane on a slightly personal quest, as her search for Addison gets real fast, once it looks like Andrew could be in some big time trouble. Her searching leads her to a shady nightclub--including its shifty manager--and some of Addison's suburban friends. We also, as mentioned, have a dead cop, meaning that Tom is in full force in this one. Tom is the former partner of Roxane's late father, and Roxane's old flame. I'm happy to report that there's plenty happening in Roxane's personal life--both with Catherine and Tom. Lots of sexual tension and witty banter on a variety of fronts. (And I am the only one who would be perfectly fine if Catherine just disappeared? Roxane deserves someone who treats her properly.)
Anyway, despite a cast of recurring characters, this one will standalone just fine. That being said, if you haven't read the first two books, I highly recommend them. The conversational first-person style Lepionka uses for Roxane is amazing and draws you in from the start. I adore Roxane's voice. (Partially because I deem her my kindred spirit--see below.)
"Apparently he was one of those people who listened to and deleted messages instead of just reading the transcription and ignoring it like I did."
Roxane is a witty, awesome, complex main character, and she's nearly impossible not to love. The story itself is dark and twisted, with plenty of twists and turns to keep you guessing. No gimmicks, just a good mystery. There's lots of humor, lots of surprises, and lots of Roxane, one of the best PIs around. 4.5 stars.
"Clients hired me to find lots of things, and I took them all seriously--but people, most of all."
So, I won't lie. I have a particular affinity for one Roxane Weary, our sarcastic, intelligent, bisexual PI. This is the third book in Roxane's series, and I just love them all. You know how you can give your iPhone a name? Well, one of mine (I have one for work and one for personal use, okay) is named Roxane. This gritty PI has wormed her way into my heart. And I've said it before and I'll say it again--it's just so refreshing to have a bisexual character in mainstream fiction who is real. She's not a crazy person or a murderer, she's just a smart, complex character. The main character. And when Roxane is talking, it sounds like my own friends hanging out. It makes me happy.
"The state of straight people was troubling."
This book finds Roxane on a slightly personal quest, as her search for Addison gets real fast, once it looks like Andrew could be in some big time trouble. Her searching leads her to a shady nightclub--including its shifty manager--and some of Addison's suburban friends. We also, as mentioned, have a dead cop, meaning that Tom is in full force in this one. Tom is the former partner of Roxane's late father, and Roxane's old flame. I'm happy to report that there's plenty happening in Roxane's personal life--both with Catherine and Tom. Lots of sexual tension and witty banter on a variety of fronts. (And I am the only one who would be perfectly fine if Catherine just disappeared? Roxane deserves someone who treats her properly.)
Anyway, despite a cast of recurring characters, this one will standalone just fine. That being said, if you haven't read the first two books, I highly recommend them. The conversational first-person style Lepionka uses for Roxane is amazing and draws you in from the start. I adore Roxane's voice. (Partially because I deem her my kindred spirit--see below.)
"Apparently he was one of those people who listened to and deleted messages instead of just reading the transcription and ignoring it like I did."
Roxane is a witty, awesome, complex main character, and she's nearly impossible not to love. The story itself is dark and twisted, with plenty of twists and turns to keep you guessing. No gimmicks, just a good mystery. There's lots of humor, lots of surprises, and lots of Roxane, one of the best PIs around. 4.5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Gold (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The pursuit of the big gold strike drives Kenny Wells (Matthew McConaughey) deep into the jungles of Indonesia. Wells is a third generation Nevada prospector trying to keep the mining company from going under. He is unable to secure a loan or investment for mining projects. He is watching his reputation take a major hit, being seen as an alcoholic and laughing stock in the industry. He is down to his last dime and working out of a bar when he pawns his girlfriend Kay’s (Bryce Dallas Howard) watch and gets on a plane to Indonesia. He is headed to meet an eager geologist Michael Acosta (Edgar Ramirez) also in the last throws of his career in. The put together Acosta and disheveled Wells strike a deal. The unlikely duo head into the uncharted jungle in search of the mother lode. After months of failure, through Wells bout with Malaria, a crew who quit and monsoon weather the impossible happens and the two have found what looks like the largest gold deposit in history. The two men who were outcast in their fields are now the most popular miners on the planet. Everyone wants to be a part of this deal and get a piece of the gold. While Acosta stays in Indonesia to operate the day to day of the mining operation Wells heads back to Reno to secure money for digging up the gold. It’s not long that major mining companies and Wall Street investors are knocking on Wells door. Whisking him off to New York in private planes and throwing lavish parties. The now begins the real test to see if he can handle the success and not blow the largest strike of his life.
Directed by Stephen Gaghan (Syriana) Gold is a wild, based on true events, story. Which means it probably has some truths, some half-truths and some almost too wild to be true but maybe true moments. McConaughey’s performance as Wells is excellent. The character at times is a slobbish, out of control alcoholic, that appears to be over his head and out of his element. But most of the time his determination to make a name for himself and his never say no attitude has you rooting for him, even when his is passed out in his underwear on the floor. The rest of the performances are good in support. The relationship with Ramirez’ character and their unlikely friendship is really well done. It took two people who seemed completely different and allowed us to see how they could come together for one goal to become good partners and friends. The story overall is good not great. It took us on a journey with Wells and mixed in really serious themes with outlandish situations. There are times that Wells antics seem forced and don’t completely disrupt the flow but definitely slow it down. It had those moments that definitely made me laugh and others that were really emotional and raw. In that way it was a blend of comedy and drama. Which for the most part mixed together really well. The film took place in the 1980’s and definitely was shot in a way that gave it a feel of the era. I enjoyed the overall the cinematography not overly spectacular but good.
The film was an enjoyable experience for me. A couple of memorable moments and a surprise, to me, at the end. There were some stretches in the story and some over the top antics but still fun.
Directed by Stephen Gaghan (Syriana) Gold is a wild, based on true events, story. Which means it probably has some truths, some half-truths and some almost too wild to be true but maybe true moments. McConaughey’s performance as Wells is excellent. The character at times is a slobbish, out of control alcoholic, that appears to be over his head and out of his element. But most of the time his determination to make a name for himself and his never say no attitude has you rooting for him, even when his is passed out in his underwear on the floor. The rest of the performances are good in support. The relationship with Ramirez’ character and their unlikely friendship is really well done. It took two people who seemed completely different and allowed us to see how they could come together for one goal to become good partners and friends. The story overall is good not great. It took us on a journey with Wells and mixed in really serious themes with outlandish situations. There are times that Wells antics seem forced and don’t completely disrupt the flow but definitely slow it down. It had those moments that definitely made me laugh and others that were really emotional and raw. In that way it was a blend of comedy and drama. Which for the most part mixed together really well. The film took place in the 1980’s and definitely was shot in a way that gave it a feel of the era. I enjoyed the overall the cinematography not overly spectacular but good.
The film was an enjoyable experience for me. A couple of memorable moments and a surprise, to me, at the end. There were some stretches in the story and some over the top antics but still fun.
Natacha (374 KP) rated Scythe (Arc of a Scythe #1) in Books
Sep 7, 2019
Unfortunately, it looks like I have an unpopular opinion once more and I'm so sad about it. The hype for the book is big and the concept of it made me really want to read it and I was sure I'll like it. But alas...
Things I like:
-The main idea of the book sounded very unique and interesting. A future society where humanity had overcome death and all diseases and the only way to keep the population to a normal number is having a group of people how must obey to a certain set of rule, randomly killing other members of the society. Such a nice concept and so many topics that you could dive in.
-There were a couple of nice twists.
-Scyth Curie was an interesting character with a nice backstory.
-Volta. He is a side character and yet, he was one of the most interesting ones.
Things I didn't like
-Everything came down to execution. As I mentioned the concept was unique but yet we get very little world-building and very little description in general. And this is coming for someone that despises lengthy descriptions. By the end of the book the only thing that I knew is that people don't die, they have a way to become young again but there is nothing left for them to do and they are bored. That's a missed opportunity to elaborate and dive into what would actually people do in these circumstances.
-Because we don't get enough information and rules in this world I was left with questions and also instances that looked like plot holes.
-The main characters. Throughout the book, we are constantly being told what characters are feeling, never shown through their actions, which made it very difficult for me to connect with them and believe what I was told they felt. An example was during Rowan training where he had to perform some actions and the only thing we got was "I don't like this" but this was never followed with actions to show us that he didn't like what he needed to do.
-It's hinted in the book that Rowan slowly turns into a bad person that is enjoying killing, but again this is never back with his action and I never felt that this was what was happening to him.
-The love story. So I've seen many people saying that there was instant love and unfortunately I agree. The two main characters fall in love within 3 months which I would argue that that makes it not instant love but, because once again we brush over everything we go to "I don't like you" to "I'm in love with you" without been shown how this happened. Yes, they are supposed to spend 3 months training together but if you don't show me how they slowly bonded and fall in love I'll never believe it. And this what happened to me.
-The climax. The book build-up to the final moment where one of the main characters will have to kill the other. This moment is in the last 5 pages off the book and once again just gets brush over the events and makes it looks too easy.
To sum up this could have been an amazing story but unfortunately, I felt like it was rushed and not well executed.
Things I like:
-The main idea of the book sounded very unique and interesting. A future society where humanity had overcome death and all diseases and the only way to keep the population to a normal number is having a group of people how must obey to a certain set of rule, randomly killing other members of the society. Such a nice concept and so many topics that you could dive in.
-There were a couple of nice twists.
-Scyth Curie was an interesting character with a nice backstory.
-Volta. He is a side character and yet, he was one of the most interesting ones.
Things I didn't like
-Everything came down to execution. As I mentioned the concept was unique but yet we get very little world-building and very little description in general. And this is coming for someone that despises lengthy descriptions. By the end of the book the only thing that I knew is that people don't die, they have a way to become young again but there is nothing left for them to do and they are bored. That's a missed opportunity to elaborate and dive into what would actually people do in these circumstances.
-Because we don't get enough information and rules in this world I was left with questions and also instances that looked like plot holes.
-The main characters. Throughout the book, we are constantly being told what characters are feeling, never shown through their actions, which made it very difficult for me to connect with them and believe what I was told they felt. An example was during Rowan training where he had to perform some actions and the only thing we got was "I don't like this" but this was never followed with actions to show us that he didn't like what he needed to do.
-It's hinted in the book that Rowan slowly turns into a bad person that is enjoying killing, but again this is never back with his action and I never felt that this was what was happening to him.
-The love story. So I've seen many people saying that there was instant love and unfortunately I agree. The two main characters fall in love within 3 months which I would argue that that makes it not instant love but, because once again we brush over everything we go to "I don't like you" to "I'm in love with you" without been shown how this happened. Yes, they are supposed to spend 3 months training together but if you don't show me how they slowly bonded and fall in love I'll never believe it. And this what happened to me.
-The climax. The book build-up to the final moment where one of the main characters will have to kill the other. This moment is in the last 5 pages off the book and once again just gets brush over the events and makes it looks too easy.
To sum up this could have been an amazing story but unfortunately, I felt like it was rushed and not well executed.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated The Informer (2019) in Movies
Sep 10, 2019
A real hidden gem.
I went into this film knowing very little about it, other than the two-line blurb on my local cinema's website. Released to a muted fanfare, this twisty-turny crime drama is a surprisingly gripping and taut thriller, with some stand-out performances from the cast.
Joel Kinnaman plays Pete Koslow, an ex-con that we soon discover is working undercover for the FBI to help take down a mob boss in New York City. Not much is known (or, frustratingly, revealed) about Koslow's backstory, but Kinnaman plays the part very well. It's not as in-depth as maybe it could've been, but his personal arc is a fresh and original spin on a tried-and-tested formula, and it is, at times, compelling to watch.
Needless to say, Koslow's arrangement with the FBI goes sour before too long, and he's left alone in prison with multiple groups of enemies with their own agendas trying to kill him. The second half of the film, where the twists and turns and clever plotting flows more freely, reminded me of Will Smith's "Enemy of the State" and Liam Neeson's "A Walk Among The Tombstones", in terms of the complex approach and execution to resolving a seemingly inescapable situation.
The story was told to great effect, with the gritty tone and the deliberate pacing perfectly suiting this competent thriller.
Ana de Armas is terrific as Koslow's long-suffering and admiringly-loyal partner, Sofia. She has a look of naivety and innocence throughout, with her perma-watering wide eyes and youthful good looks, yet she is as tough as they come and the perfect match for Kinnaman's lead.
Clive Owen also deserves a mention for another consistent performance, despite him being woefully underused here. He steals every scene he's in, playing a menacing background antagonist incredibly well.
For me, this movie was let down by two things. First, its ending, which felt sudden and rushed, as if it stopped mid-sentence. It's not the kind of film that warrants a sequel, nor was it, I imagine, made with the intention of one. So to leave so many questions unanswered serves little purpose and ultimately leaves you disappointed after what was otherwise a very, very clever film.
Secondly, Rosamund Pike's performance left a lot to be desired. Because of her outstanding lack of on-screen charisma, you never truly connect with her character, Agent Wilcox. Her handling of Koslow's operation felt hollow. She showed no emotional range whatsoever, and wore the same expression throughout the entire film. Consequently, the journey of her character and the impact her decisions have on both other people, and the movie's eventual outcome, felt empty and pointless.
Despite that, this is a real hidden gem. As I noted earlier, this wasn't what you would call a "big" release. It came out under the radar and, as a result, was the subject of very few expectations. But what you have here is an intelligent thriller that provides an original take on a typical storyline that delivers in almost every way it intended to.
This is the film you stream off Netflix on a Friday night while eating a takeaway after a hard week at work.
Joel Kinnaman plays Pete Koslow, an ex-con that we soon discover is working undercover for the FBI to help take down a mob boss in New York City. Not much is known (or, frustratingly, revealed) about Koslow's backstory, but Kinnaman plays the part very well. It's not as in-depth as maybe it could've been, but his personal arc is a fresh and original spin on a tried-and-tested formula, and it is, at times, compelling to watch.
Needless to say, Koslow's arrangement with the FBI goes sour before too long, and he's left alone in prison with multiple groups of enemies with their own agendas trying to kill him. The second half of the film, where the twists and turns and clever plotting flows more freely, reminded me of Will Smith's "Enemy of the State" and Liam Neeson's "A Walk Among The Tombstones", in terms of the complex approach and execution to resolving a seemingly inescapable situation.
The story was told to great effect, with the gritty tone and the deliberate pacing perfectly suiting this competent thriller.
Ana de Armas is terrific as Koslow's long-suffering and admiringly-loyal partner, Sofia. She has a look of naivety and innocence throughout, with her perma-watering wide eyes and youthful good looks, yet she is as tough as they come and the perfect match for Kinnaman's lead.
Clive Owen also deserves a mention for another consistent performance, despite him being woefully underused here. He steals every scene he's in, playing a menacing background antagonist incredibly well.
For me, this movie was let down by two things. First, its ending, which felt sudden and rushed, as if it stopped mid-sentence. It's not the kind of film that warrants a sequel, nor was it, I imagine, made with the intention of one. So to leave so many questions unanswered serves little purpose and ultimately leaves you disappointed after what was otherwise a very, very clever film.
Secondly, Rosamund Pike's performance left a lot to be desired. Because of her outstanding lack of on-screen charisma, you never truly connect with her character, Agent Wilcox. Her handling of Koslow's operation felt hollow. She showed no emotional range whatsoever, and wore the same expression throughout the entire film. Consequently, the journey of her character and the impact her decisions have on both other people, and the movie's eventual outcome, felt empty and pointless.
Despite that, this is a real hidden gem. As I noted earlier, this wasn't what you would call a "big" release. It came out under the radar and, as a result, was the subject of very few expectations. But what you have here is an intelligent thriller that provides an original take on a typical storyline that delivers in almost every way it intended to.
This is the film you stream off Netflix on a Friday night while eating a takeaway after a hard week at work.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 4, 2019
Thoughts on Joker
Characters – Arthur Fleck is a loner that has been struggling for work, he wants to be an entertainer and is working on his own material to try his luck at stand-up comedy. He starts a new relationship and thinks his life is going in a new direction, until he learns the truth, becoming the icon we know. Murray Franklin is the host of his own talk show, he handles the comedy of the real events and is the man Arthur sees as an idol, he sees one of the clips of the stand up and puts it on his own show. Sophie is the neighbour and single mother that starts a relationship with Arthur, showing him in a better life. Penny is the mother of Arthur, she sees only the good in the richest man in the town and writes to him often waiting for a reply from her former employer. While most of the characters do have more about them, though most details will contain full spoilers.
Performances – Joaquin Phoenix gives us a wonderful performance, showing his commitment to the role, which will be one people will talk about when award season hits. Robert De Niro is joy to watch as the charismatic talk show host. Zazie Beetz is good to watch, though she just doesn’t get enough screen time. Frances Conroy is strong to through the film.
Story – The story here follows a man that has been failed by the society and the mental health system, which sees him struggle to deal with reality and begin his path to become one of the most iconic comic villains. This is much like Venom, a strange choice for a character to bring to the centre stage because we shouldn’t be backing a villainous character, but this time we do get everything connecting to why Joker became who he is. By stepping into how mental health can be brushed aside at times forcing people to fall through the cracks, not being treated the correct way to help them. If you are expecting any sort of comic book movie, you will be lost in this one because nothing we see has anything that couldn’t become a reality, which is what could make the film feel unsettling in places. This is also a story that could have been told without needing to throw a big character name like the Joker in around it and it might have been even better if it didn’t rely on the familiar name.
Crime – The crime side of the film shows how Arthur starts by being a victim, before he starts to try and show just how far he will go to stand up for himself.
Settings – The film does use the settings brilliantly, showing how Arthur has come from the bottom, never been given a thing in life, which does reflect just how we would see a Batman figure born with wealth.
Scene of the Movie – Talk show time.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I didn’t like the laughing stuff, it would include spoilers to why though.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting a dark spin on the world for one of the biggest names in comic book history, without making it feel like a comic book in anyway.
Overall: Dark and as Twisted as You Would Imagine.
Characters – Arthur Fleck is a loner that has been struggling for work, he wants to be an entertainer and is working on his own material to try his luck at stand-up comedy. He starts a new relationship and thinks his life is going in a new direction, until he learns the truth, becoming the icon we know. Murray Franklin is the host of his own talk show, he handles the comedy of the real events and is the man Arthur sees as an idol, he sees one of the clips of the stand up and puts it on his own show. Sophie is the neighbour and single mother that starts a relationship with Arthur, showing him in a better life. Penny is the mother of Arthur, she sees only the good in the richest man in the town and writes to him often waiting for a reply from her former employer. While most of the characters do have more about them, though most details will contain full spoilers.
Performances – Joaquin Phoenix gives us a wonderful performance, showing his commitment to the role, which will be one people will talk about when award season hits. Robert De Niro is joy to watch as the charismatic talk show host. Zazie Beetz is good to watch, though she just doesn’t get enough screen time. Frances Conroy is strong to through the film.
Story – The story here follows a man that has been failed by the society and the mental health system, which sees him struggle to deal with reality and begin his path to become one of the most iconic comic villains. This is much like Venom, a strange choice for a character to bring to the centre stage because we shouldn’t be backing a villainous character, but this time we do get everything connecting to why Joker became who he is. By stepping into how mental health can be brushed aside at times forcing people to fall through the cracks, not being treated the correct way to help them. If you are expecting any sort of comic book movie, you will be lost in this one because nothing we see has anything that couldn’t become a reality, which is what could make the film feel unsettling in places. This is also a story that could have been told without needing to throw a big character name like the Joker in around it and it might have been even better if it didn’t rely on the familiar name.
Crime – The crime side of the film shows how Arthur starts by being a victim, before he starts to try and show just how far he will go to stand up for himself.
Settings – The film does use the settings brilliantly, showing how Arthur has come from the bottom, never been given a thing in life, which does reflect just how we would see a Batman figure born with wealth.
Scene of the Movie – Talk show time.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I didn’t like the laughing stuff, it would include spoilers to why though.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting a dark spin on the world for one of the biggest names in comic book history, without making it feel like a comic book in anyway.
Overall: Dark and as Twisted as You Would Imagine.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
Not quite (Inter)stellar...
Ad Astra is a discreet sci-fi film set in an unspecified near future, and is the claustrophobic, deliberate and tense story of Major Roy McBride (played intentionally one-dimensional by Brad Pitt), a soldier and an astronaut, recruited to a top secret mission revolving around the father he never knew, portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
ClareR (5589 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.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Rabid (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Rose is the quiet assistant to a fashion designer, she has her own ideas that she does want to see made, the girls come to her to get small adjustments, but the designer treats her like a carpet. She isn’t seen in the same light as the models and often keeps to herself. She gets involved in an accident which first sees her horribly disfigured and secondly lose her job, desperate to fix this, she turns to an experimental procedure which fixes everything, giving her a new lease for life and a taste for blood. Brad is one of the co-workers that does try to help Rose come out of her shell by inviting her to the party before the accident. Chelsea is the foster sister to Rose that has been working with her too, she is the one that opens up her home after the accident, helping her get back on her feet, supporting her through the treatment, not looking away like most the others in her life would.
Performances – Laura Vandervoort does give us a strong performance throughout, being able to balance the losing her mind and determined personality. Hanneke Talbot is strong too and the supportive friend, that does get to show the pushy personality her character has around Rose. Benjamin Hollingsworth does show us a strong friend or potential love interest in the film, while big names like Stephen McHattie and C.M. Punk make entertaining supporting appearance.
Story – The story here follows a young lady that sees her life turned upside down after an accident leaves her disfigured, only for an experiment procedure bringing out a new version of herself and an unwanted side effect along the way. This is a remake and one story that can remain similar is places, while bringing the social side of the film to new heights, the fashion world does make a wonderful backdrop for the story because it reflects the world that image needs to be fix with surgery. There are certain ways the story does feel weaker, that is mostly seeing how everything is spreading, which is important, but it doesn’t follow Rose, which is the important side of the story.
Horror/Sci-Fi – The horror side of the film comes from the real world situation that Rose goes through, with the accident before hitting the graphic violence of what is happening to Rose, which is also the sci-fi side of the film, the changes Rose goes through.
Settings – The film uses the fashion world as the main settings backdrop, it shows us just how important image is to Rose and the people close to her.
Special Effects – The complete highlight of this film comes from the practical effects, which look as graphic as they can, the injury suffered by Rose is one of the worst wounds you will see in this year’s horror films. We should give a shout out to the team (According to IMDB) Graham Chivers, Jeff Derushie, Anahita Loghmanifar, Emily O’Quinn and Omar Roessler
Scene of the Movie – The first reveal from the injury.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We do move away from Rose, as the bigger problems spread around the city, we could have been given more fear from not seeing this, only hearing about it.
Final Thoughts – This is a practical effects masterclass in horror, it will use some of the best you will see this year even if the story is a modernised look at a cult classic.
Overall: Bloody graphic horror.
Performances – Laura Vandervoort does give us a strong performance throughout, being able to balance the losing her mind and determined personality. Hanneke Talbot is strong too and the supportive friend, that does get to show the pushy personality her character has around Rose. Benjamin Hollingsworth does show us a strong friend or potential love interest in the film, while big names like Stephen McHattie and C.M. Punk make entertaining supporting appearance.
Story – The story here follows a young lady that sees her life turned upside down after an accident leaves her disfigured, only for an experiment procedure bringing out a new version of herself and an unwanted side effect along the way. This is a remake and one story that can remain similar is places, while bringing the social side of the film to new heights, the fashion world does make a wonderful backdrop for the story because it reflects the world that image needs to be fix with surgery. There are certain ways the story does feel weaker, that is mostly seeing how everything is spreading, which is important, but it doesn’t follow Rose, which is the important side of the story.
Horror/Sci-Fi – The horror side of the film comes from the real world situation that Rose goes through, with the accident before hitting the graphic violence of what is happening to Rose, which is also the sci-fi side of the film, the changes Rose goes through.
Settings – The film uses the fashion world as the main settings backdrop, it shows us just how important image is to Rose and the people close to her.
Special Effects – The complete highlight of this film comes from the practical effects, which look as graphic as they can, the injury suffered by Rose is one of the worst wounds you will see in this year’s horror films. We should give a shout out to the team (According to IMDB) Graham Chivers, Jeff Derushie, Anahita Loghmanifar, Emily O’Quinn and Omar Roessler
Scene of the Movie – The first reveal from the injury.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We do move away from Rose, as the bigger problems spread around the city, we could have been given more fear from not seeing this, only hearing about it.
Final Thoughts – This is a practical effects masterclass in horror, it will use some of the best you will see this year even if the story is a modernised look at a cult classic.
Overall: Bloody graphic horror.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Killing Ground (2016) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Story: Killing Ground starts when couple Ian (Meadows) and Samantha (Dyer) head off for a romantic camping trip, learning they are not the only couple on the grounds they look to stay out of the others way, only to never see them return to their grounds. Scotty (Pedersen) and Tood (Glenane) are two locals of the area that come off shady, also have had run ins with the law.
We know something happened to the family in the camp next door and when Ian and Samantha find their baby wandering around the area. Soon they will be fighting for their lives against the criminal psychopaths that enjoy hunting.
Thoughts on Killing Ground
Characters – Ian is a doctor who along with his girlfriend goes on the camping trip, he knows how to survive any injuries which makes him the one that could help survive the attack because o his logical decision making process. Samantha is the girlfriend that is using the trip for a big moment only to find herself needing to fight to survive. Scotty is the one of the two which seems to be the mastermind, well leader of the two who knows how to control the situation and Tood. Tood is the loose cannon, who comes off simple minded at times and other times he comes off like the psychopath he is meant to be.
Performances – The performances in this film do come off real, we believe the couple Ian Meadows & Harriet Dyer with each decision they must make, we also get scared of both the Aaron’s who gives us uneasy performances through the whole film.
Story – The story here follows three lines to start with, we have the couple heading of to their romantic camping trip, the family on their camping trip, that we know something happens to and the two men who will be committing the crime. To start with this felt annoying, I won’t lie, but soon this just builds the tension through the film as we just want to know what happens, with each twist that connection the stories becoming unsettling. We see the aftermath of what has happened over just putting us through the events, which only continues to make everything extra disturbing. This is a type of story we have seen before, though the fresh approach to this only makes this more interesting to watch even if you want to look away.
Horror – This is easily one of the most disturbing horror films you will see, when you stop to think about anything that happens, what you end up feeling is just uneasy because of what happens off camera, with the tension only making this harder to get through.
Settings – The film takes place in a remote camping ground which gives us the feeling of isolation, with have no phone signal and the humans might not be the only danger here, this is a perfect use of setting.
Special Effects – The effects are used to make each moment look more horrific, they are subtle and effective.
Scene of the Movie – When the couple plan to leave, we have a wonderful shot of Samantha walking away with somebody desperately needing help behind her.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I didn’t like the opening moments of the three stories, it does work once we are get going.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most disturbing non-graphic films I have seen, being left to imagine just what happens is even worse than watching it.
Overall: Unsettling and disturbing.
We know something happened to the family in the camp next door and when Ian and Samantha find their baby wandering around the area. Soon they will be fighting for their lives against the criminal psychopaths that enjoy hunting.
Thoughts on Killing Ground
Characters – Ian is a doctor who along with his girlfriend goes on the camping trip, he knows how to survive any injuries which makes him the one that could help survive the attack because o his logical decision making process. Samantha is the girlfriend that is using the trip for a big moment only to find herself needing to fight to survive. Scotty is the one of the two which seems to be the mastermind, well leader of the two who knows how to control the situation and Tood. Tood is the loose cannon, who comes off simple minded at times and other times he comes off like the psychopath he is meant to be.
Performances – The performances in this film do come off real, we believe the couple Ian Meadows & Harriet Dyer with each decision they must make, we also get scared of both the Aaron’s who gives us uneasy performances through the whole film.
Story – The story here follows three lines to start with, we have the couple heading of to their romantic camping trip, the family on their camping trip, that we know something happens to and the two men who will be committing the crime. To start with this felt annoying, I won’t lie, but soon this just builds the tension through the film as we just want to know what happens, with each twist that connection the stories becoming unsettling. We see the aftermath of what has happened over just putting us through the events, which only continues to make everything extra disturbing. This is a type of story we have seen before, though the fresh approach to this only makes this more interesting to watch even if you want to look away.
Horror – This is easily one of the most disturbing horror films you will see, when you stop to think about anything that happens, what you end up feeling is just uneasy because of what happens off camera, with the tension only making this harder to get through.
Settings – The film takes place in a remote camping ground which gives us the feeling of isolation, with have no phone signal and the humans might not be the only danger here, this is a perfect use of setting.
Special Effects – The effects are used to make each moment look more horrific, they are subtle and effective.
Scene of the Movie – When the couple plan to leave, we have a wonderful shot of Samantha walking away with somebody desperately needing help behind her.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I didn’t like the opening moments of the three stories, it does work once we are get going.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most disturbing non-graphic films I have seen, being left to imagine just what happens is even worse than watching it.
Overall: Unsettling and disturbing.