Search

Search only in certain items:

Voyagers (2021)
Voyagers (2021)
2021 | Adventure, Sci-Fi, Thriller
8
5.7 (3 Ratings)
Movie Rating
The classic novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding is not only a beloved classic but has been assigned reading for generations of students since it was first published in 1954. The book has been adapted into plays and films over the years and remains a chilling and poignant cautionary tale.

In the new movie “Voyagers” audiences are introduced to an Earth that has been ravaged by climate change and disease. In an effort to save the species; a grand experiment to genetically create a group of children who are the origins of a colonization effort is undertaken.

The planet is 86 years away so the decision is made that the children will be raised and trained indoors without any exposure to nature, open skies, fresh air, and other aspects they will be deprived of on the ship.

Richard (Colin Farrell) decides to accompany the children on the mission as he wants to protect them and ensure things go as planned so their progeny will be well suited to continue on the mission to the next generation who will ultimately be the ones who colonize the planet.

Ten years into the mission things are going well until a discovery is made that a drink the children take daily known as “The Blue” is a drug used to suppress their emotions and keep them docile and easy to control.

When friends Christopher (Tye Sheridan) and Zac (Fionn Whitehead); who learned the secret of the drug decide to stop taking it; they soon reveal the truth of their discovery to the rest of the children who in turn stop using the drug.

In no time rampant emotions, aggressions, desires, paranoia, and mistrust start to run wild and Zac becomes obsessed with Sela (Lilly-Rose Depp). His unwelcome advances soon become more and more aggressive which causes Christopher and Richard to intervene and tragedy soon follows.

Christopher and Zac soon find themselves at odds with one another and fear and paranoia lead the crew to form into factions and turn on one other which not only threatens the mission but their very survival.

The film was very engaging and while I saw the influence of Lord of the Flies early on; the engaging cast and setting make the film entertaining and enjoyable despite any really unexpected twists.

The young leads work well with one another and it will be very interesting to watch how their careers unfold in the years to come. “Voyagers” is a refreshing new take on a classic tale and provides an entertaining and engaging adventure for viewers to enjoy.
  
Venom (2018)
Venom (2018)
2018 | Action, Sci-Fi
This is the worst kind of relatively big budget popcorn tease – the kind of film that knows its demographic will flood to it regardless of quality, so let’s not even bother trying to make it good. The first sign of this type is a script that is such gibberish you almost start to wonder if you are having a stroke, and Venom has that in spades! Just when you think you have a handle on it, off it goes on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything other than setting up the next CGI shot. Which is the second sign – CGI good enough to pass, but quite obviously not the cutting edge stuff we have already seen years ago in better films. Cheap and nasty. The third sign is a director that can bung a few thrills in the mix but has no care whatsoever for characterisation, pace, plot or sensible motivation. Well done Ruben Fleischer for being the first director to have two films included in my BMTBs, following Zombieland Double Tap – I really can’t split them. The only fun to be had here is watching Tom Hardy amuse himself with a comic book characature so far over the top it hurts. Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed are horribly wasted and should be ashamed. Just awful stuff!
  
40x40

Ronyell (38 KP) rated James and the Giant Peach (1996) in Movies

Aug 4, 2020 (Updated Aug 4, 2020)  
James and the Giant Peach (1996)
James and the Giant Peach (1996)
1996 | Animation, Family
8
7.3 (21 Ratings)
Movie Rating
A Boy and His Giant Sized Bugs
Now, I was practically introduced to "James and the Giant Peach" through Roald Dahl's original book and I instantly fell in love with this story! So, I was definitely excited to see Roald Dahl's classic novel come to life in animation and I must say that I practically enjoyed this bizarre yet creative version of the classic children's story. I absolutely loved all of the characters, with my favorite characters being Miss Spider and the Centipede. I loved Miss Spider because she was quite an unusual character as she is considered frightening by the other bugs due to her literally eating other bugs, but I loved the fact that she cares so much for James and was willing to help him out no matter how horrifying the situation is. The Centipede was a truly fun character as he might be a little rude and annoying to the other bugs, but I loved his courageous nature and the fact that he is also willing to help James out of his situation. The voice acting was fantastic, especially Susan Sarandon as the quiet and serious Miss Spider and Richard Dreyfuss as the fun loving Centipede, as they fit the characters extremely well and they bring so much life to the characters. The story was truly creative, especially about the idea of a group of friends (giant insects in this case) coming together inside a giant peach and traveling around the world with it! I found that idea to be a bit strange yet creative at the same time and even though I have an intense fear of bugs, I definitely would have loved to be friends with giant bugs!


The major problem I had with this movie was that there seemed to be so many plot holes within this film that there were times that I did not understand what was going on in this film. Like for example, how did Aunt Sponge and Aunt Spiker drive their car through the ocean and how can a mechanical shark appear out of nowhere in the ocean?

Overall, "James and the Giant Peach" is definitely one treat that fans of Roald Dahl's works and fans of surreal animation should definitely check out!
  
40x40

Sarah (7798 KP) created a post

Jan 18, 2021 (Updated Jan 18, 2021)  
(Posting this separately as it covers as a review for 3 films @The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) , @The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) and @The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) )
Film(s) #11 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Film 11 is actually the three films that make up the Lord of the Rings trilogy: Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and Return of the King. Whilst I can entirely understand featuring the trilogy as a whole, especially as they were filmed back to back and follow the same continuing storyline, however as a watcher this is a tad frustrating. The extended editions of these films, which I own of course, come in at a hefty runtime of just under 12 hours and this means a marathon of a film screening. But gripes about the runtime aside, this trilogy is still every bit the epic I remember it being when they were first released nearly 20 years ago.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is based by JRR Tolkien’s book of the same name that follows Frodo (Elijah Wood), a hobbit who must journey to the darkest lands of Mordor to destroy a powerful ring before it falls into the hands of the evil lord Sauron. Throughout Frodo’s journey across Middle Earth, he is accompanied by a 9 strong fellowship: hobbits Sam (Sean Astin), Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd); men Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and Boromir (Sean Bean); elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom), wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies). All of whom must also face their own battles in the war to defeat Sauron.

At the time these films were released between 2001 and 2003, we’d never seen filmmaking taken to such extremes and I’d argue that aside from the later Hobbit film trilogy (the less said about those the better), we still haven’t seen anything like it in the decades since. To film these back to back over 15 months with a immense cast, sets and filming locations across New Zealand is no mean feat and watching these back you can really appreciate the sheer amount of work that has gone into these films. The cinematography is stunning and really highlights the beautiful scenery of New Zealand, and the CGI for it’s time was beyond impressive. The motion capture technology used for Andy Serkis’ portrayal of Gollum was incredible and like nothing we’d seen before. All of this paired with Howard Shore’s hugely memorable and iconic score makes for a superb bit of filmmaking.

What makes director Peter Jackson’s take on Lord of the Rings so engaging is the story and the fact that there’s nothing in the main plot that is unnecessary. Jackson had removed all of the erroneous side plots from the book (think Tom Bombadil) yet kept the main thread of the story intact, which effortlessly weaves serious fantasy and war with some rather light hearted and funny moments. While I would normally be an advocate of books over their film counterparts, I happily make an exception for the Lord of the Rings. The films are definitely better than the book. They’re also helped by a stellar cast, from seasoned veterans like Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee (Saruman), to relative newcomers at the time like Viggo Mortensen, who has by far a standout performance, who all do their part to make this trilogy come alive.

This isn’t to say that the trilogy is flawless. Whilst the films look good for their age, some of the special effects haven’t aged quite as well as you’d expect and there are some that are looking decidedly ragged around the edges – Treebeard in Fangorn forest is but one example. The casting of Orlando Bloom was also a questionable one. His acting skills are limited at best and while he is meant to be playing a rather emotionless elf, his performance is very poor compared the rest of the elvish actors. He probably isn’t helped by the fact that Legolas has been given some rather ridiculous and farfetched acrobatics that just look quite silly. And then there’s Éowyn, who is possibly one of the most irritating characters of all, her doe eyed fawning over Aragorn completely overruling the tough, feisty woman she’s trying to be. Finally I’d also question about whether the extended editions are truly necessary, which I appreciate does make me a bit of a hypocrite seen as I own them. They might include scenes we’d never seen in the theatrical releases, but I’d argue that none of these ads particularly much to the overall story.

However despite these flaws, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is undeniably an epic masterclass in filmmaking from Peter Jackson and these are 3 films that you won’t forget in a hurry. It can only be 10/10.
     
The Maze Runner
The Maze Runner
James Dashner | 2011 | Children
7
8.0 (55 Ratings)
Book Rating
Emotional main character (0 more)
Repetitive use of certain words (0 more)
Contains spoilers, click to show
There are murderous creatures in the maze, but the maze is your only way home.

Although there is power in numbers, no one in the Glade knows how they got there or why they're there. Everyone has a job, either making food or running the maze, hoping to find an exit, but they've been at it for two years.

Then there's the 'changing.' Anyone who has seen the creatures in the maze knows they can be stung instead of killed (which one is worse is hard to tell), it brings back unwanted memories of their life before the maze. All can agree, that have been stung, it's better to live with the Maze than with what's outside in the world.

In 'The Maze Runner,' James Dashner writes an action filled mystery that keeps the readers on their toes. Although the film is already out and has been viewed by millions, the book is well worth a read just because the movie kept out crucial parts that happened in the book!

The reader gets to follow Thomas from the very moment he enters the Glade; everything is new for him and for us. Thomas quickly wants to be a Runner (someone who runs the maze every day, from sun up to sun down), but the leaders of the Glade think he's a greenie (new person in the Glade) that thinks he's too good for hard labor: "Listen, trust me on this, Tommy. Start stompin' around this place yappin' about how you're too good to work like a peasant, how you're all nice and ready to be a Runner - you'll make plenty of enemies. Drop it for now." Thomas' fast friend, Newt, gives him sound advice.

Later in the book, Thomas ends up becoming a Runner after saving the leader of the Glade from the maze and its creatures. The maze's openings close at sundown every night, which means if you get caught in the maze afterwards, you are stuck out there until sun rise, and this is exactly what happened with leader, Alby and lead Runner, Minho.

As the walls were closing, Thomas and Newt saw the forms of Alby and Minho appear,but they both knew they wouldn't make it in time - Thomas runs inside just as the walls shut behind him. "Greenie,' Minho said, 'if you think that was brave comin' out here, listen up. You're the shuckiest shuck-faced shuck there ever was. You're as good as dead, just like us." Thomas also broke the biggest rule of the Glade : DO NOT ENTER THE MAZE IF YOU'RE NOT A RUNNER.

This entire night is the most important part of the book.

All of the characters in Dashner's first book of the series are interesting and diverse, even down to Newt's accent. My biggest complaint of this book was the author's over use of the words meters and centimeters; there are plenty of words out there that are used to describe how big or how small something is,but Dashner decided to only use those two words repeatedly. Also, all of the Gladers use code words for curse words, but this is never explained why they do this (such as shuck face instead of fuck face).

Then there's the telepathy that Thomas has with Teresa (the only girl to ever show up at the Glade) - this may be explained later on in the other books,but having only read this one so far - this is never explained. They use this ability quite a bit after Teresa wakes up from her 'coma,' that it almost seems like an afterthought that was just added to make the story more interesting.

I also don't have patience for characters that make a decision then suddenly change their mind the very next page. At one point, when Thomas and Teresa learn that there is a code for the maze, they agree that they shouldn't tell anyone about it,yet,suddenly, like right after Thomas states he doesn't need to tell anyone, he's thinking he MUST tell someone about the code.

But,the entire book isn't like this. Dashner is very fluid in his writing,and keeps the reader interested with really no downtime in between chapters - there just always seems to be something happening or going wrong!

Also, Dashner made Thomas into an emotional character, something that is odd in writing for a male character. He isn't afraid to show his emotions, and this is something that is very welcomed and written quite well throughout the book.

Yet, the other characters aren't written as well as our main character. A majority of the characters just seem angry all the time, walking around with a chip on their shoulder. Any other character that is mentioned, such as Zart, is a blank slate except for the slight description of what they look like.

The Glade and the maze are wonderfully described that even a light reader can imagine it. The creatures inside seem to take the cake when it comes to description, seeming that Dashner took more time out to describe these nightmarish beings.

I think the fact that the movie left out important parts of the book did a dishonor to Dashner's work. The book's version of events may not make more sense than the film's, but it made for a more interesting story. I do like the movies, but you MUST read the book if you like them. You missed out on quite a few things.

I certainly recommend this book. Most people don't categorize 'The Maze Runner' as a horror- genre book,but I ask you: if you woke up in an isolated community, where you can only get out if you solve the maze, which is covered in creatures that want to hunt you down and kill you, wouldn't you consider that a horrific problem?
  
40x40

Bubblesreview (110 KP) rated Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in Books

Mar 25, 2019 (Updated Mar 25, 2019)  
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
Robert Louis Stevenson | 2012 | Fiction & Poetry
6
8.0 (2 Ratings)
Book Rating
Pros:
▪ Unique story
▪ Short Story
▪ Extra short story at the back
Cons:
▪ Boring start
▪ Constructed poorly
▪ Not much to offer if you know the plot twist (who doesn't right?)
Ok so for as long as I can remember I've always known the basis of the story of Jekyll and Hyde, particularly when someone would have a mood swing another would note that they're acting like Jekyll and Hyde, for example.
However, I've never actually read the story.
A quick read it was, less than 100 pages, it's the shortest story I've read yet. Considering the amount of tv/film recreations of this story I was shocked to find its so short and it's really not very descriptive on terms of Mr Hydes character in particular, which is what the author was aiming for.
If you already know the twist in this story then the book won't really get you revved up, I found it very dry and bland. I can however imagine that back in the 1880s this book would've been an incredible read and very different and creative.
I'm not going to conclude by saying this book was awful because it's far from it, it does have good parts.
The last chapter in particular, Henry Jekylls full statement, was the best part of this book, it's the only part that kept me intrigued, it's just getting there that's the problem.
Aside from the boring background story of the lawyer and the will, the actual story of Jekyll and Hyde and the way Jekyll comes about finding Hyde is actually something of a mind blowing creation, and very original.
This particular print had an extra short story afterwards, the bottle and the imp, now this story I did find intriguing, it captivated me. I found it similar to Aladdin with a magic lamp, but in a much shorter story and a magic bottle and an imp instead of a lamp and genie.