Search
Search results

Darren (1599 KP) rated The Spiderwick Chronicles (2008) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Characters – Jared is the out going of the twins, he is the one that reads the book and must convince the rest to fight back against goblins, his nature means people are less likely to believe him through any of his decisions though. Simon is the quieter and smarter brother that must look for the solution to the problems being caused. Helen is the mother that is dealing with raising the three children after her marriage has fallen apart and she needs to start a new life, one she isn’t prepared for. Mallory is the older sister that must be the warrior for the twins. Mulgarath is the goblin king that wants the book to kill any species in the surrounding area.
Performances – Freddie Highmore takes twin roles here and handles them both very well showing how he can be the smarter kid and the adventurous one too. Mary Louise Parker in the parental role works well as we need her to bring the serious side to the story now. Sarah Bolger is strong too needing to be the strongest member of the children.
Story – The story takes three siblings into a battle with goblins with fantasy creatures being used to guide the way in this battle. This will bring the broken family back together, well back to the level they are going to need to get used too. The scale of the book doesn’t give the story enough credit because it feels like this book has created a massive world only for us to get a snippet into everything. this story doesn’t re-invent the wheel because we can see the formula unfold without needing to guess to much on just how thing go on. We do deal with a big family change which should be the focal point through the film too.
Adventure/Fantasy – The adventure side of the film takes the family into battle against the creatures of the forest which are invisible to most of the world, this plays into the fantasy side too because of the creatures we see at war.
Settings – The film takes the family to a new house that is in the middle of the forest, which shows us the finical change the family must take, as well as the adventures waiting in the forest for people to experience.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are strong for the most part because we get to see the different creation looking like they would fit in the normal world.
Scene of the Movie – Come with me.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not getting a full grasp of the scale of the fantasy world.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun fantasy adventure that brings the characters into a world which will unite them as they deal with the biggest change of the children’s life.
Overall: Simple and enjoyable.
Performances – Freddie Highmore takes twin roles here and handles them both very well showing how he can be the smarter kid and the adventurous one too. Mary Louise Parker in the parental role works well as we need her to bring the serious side to the story now. Sarah Bolger is strong too needing to be the strongest member of the children.
Story – The story takes three siblings into a battle with goblins with fantasy creatures being used to guide the way in this battle. This will bring the broken family back together, well back to the level they are going to need to get used too. The scale of the book doesn’t give the story enough credit because it feels like this book has created a massive world only for us to get a snippet into everything. this story doesn’t re-invent the wheel because we can see the formula unfold without needing to guess to much on just how thing go on. We do deal with a big family change which should be the focal point through the film too.
Adventure/Fantasy – The adventure side of the film takes the family into battle against the creatures of the forest which are invisible to most of the world, this plays into the fantasy side too because of the creatures we see at war.
Settings – The film takes the family to a new house that is in the middle of the forest, which shows us the finical change the family must take, as well as the adventures waiting in the forest for people to experience.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are strong for the most part because we get to see the different creation looking like they would fit in the normal world.
Scene of the Movie – Come with me.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not getting a full grasp of the scale of the fantasy world.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun fantasy adventure that brings the characters into a world which will unite them as they deal with the biggest change of the children’s life.
Overall: Simple and enjoyable.

Space and Being in Contemporary French Cinema
Book
This book brings together for the first time five French directors who have established themselves...

The Screenwriter's Path: From Idea to Script to Sale
Book
The Screenwriter's Path takes a comprehensive approach to learning how to write a...

Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Oct 7, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Cloverfield Paradox is the third and (at time of writing) the last Cloverfield film and it's main purpose is to explain where Clover and his friends come from. Does it do this in an easy to follow, straight forward way that fits easily into the already established Cloverfield universe? Hell no.
The first film was a found footage monster movie and the second film was a psychological thriller that was loosely linked to the first so naturally the third film is a hard Sci-Fi set in the near future. The earth has used up most of it's resources and everyone is nearly at war, the last hope is the Cloverfield space-station which has the 'Shepard' beam, an experimental particle beam that, if it works, will produce an endless supply of energy. The lack of resources and looming war are the only problems, there are no monsters and there never were.
The Cloverfield Paradox mainly follows the crew of the space station and quickly turns into a Sci-Fi horror in a similar vain to 'Event Horizon'. Basically the crew activate the Shepard Beam, it works then crashes and the earth disappears. Then strange things start to happen. At the same time something happens on earth, there is an attack on America and a few people run around trying to find out what happens and one hides in a bunker similar to the one in 10 Cloverfield Lane. Meanwhile the crew of the Cloverfield try to find out where the earth is.
As a Sci-Fi, the Cloverfield Paradox works well, it uses just enough jargon and theoretical physics and as a horror it works well, killing off the cast in weird and wonderful ways. And as an explanation for Clover well SPOILER that's what attacked Earth, of course this is only reviled right at the end and there is no explanation to how they got to the past in the other film's. Except there is, about twenty minuets into the film, after everything has been set up but before everything goes wrong there is a news program shown on a monitor whilst the crew begin to start their experiments. The news show is interviewing the author of a book called 'The Cloverfield Paradox' and, in the interview the author explains everything from what is going to happen to how Clover and the other monsters appear on earth even though know one in the future knows anything about them, so pay attention.
One thing the all three Cloverfield films did well was all of the extra stuff. The original film started with tease trailers, infomercial's form company's seen in the film and fake news reels. This kind of marketing continued for all three films and other information was made available including one big link between Cloverfield and the Cloverfield Paradox. The last scene of the first film, the scene that was set before everything that happened with the couple by the beach shows something falling from the sky in the background, this is part of the Cloverfield space station.
With the revelation that the creatures now exist all through time a fourth film was rumoured - Overlord- however, even though the film was made by the same company and the same people it was never part of the Cloverfield universe and is/was meant to be the start of it's own franchise. Even though it could easily fit even as a ret con.
The first film was a found footage monster movie and the second film was a psychological thriller that was loosely linked to the first so naturally the third film is a hard Sci-Fi set in the near future. The earth has used up most of it's resources and everyone is nearly at war, the last hope is the Cloverfield space-station which has the 'Shepard' beam, an experimental particle beam that, if it works, will produce an endless supply of energy. The lack of resources and looming war are the only problems, there are no monsters and there never were.
The Cloverfield Paradox mainly follows the crew of the space station and quickly turns into a Sci-Fi horror in a similar vain to 'Event Horizon'. Basically the crew activate the Shepard Beam, it works then crashes and the earth disappears. Then strange things start to happen. At the same time something happens on earth, there is an attack on America and a few people run around trying to find out what happens and one hides in a bunker similar to the one in 10 Cloverfield Lane. Meanwhile the crew of the Cloverfield try to find out where the earth is.
As a Sci-Fi, the Cloverfield Paradox works well, it uses just enough jargon and theoretical physics and as a horror it works well, killing off the cast in weird and wonderful ways. And as an explanation for Clover well SPOILER that's what attacked Earth, of course this is only reviled right at the end and there is no explanation to how they got to the past in the other film's. Except there is, about twenty minuets into the film, after everything has been set up but before everything goes wrong there is a news program shown on a monitor whilst the crew begin to start their experiments. The news show is interviewing the author of a book called 'The Cloverfield Paradox' and, in the interview the author explains everything from what is going to happen to how Clover and the other monsters appear on earth even though know one in the future knows anything about them, so pay attention.
One thing the all three Cloverfield films did well was all of the extra stuff. The original film started with tease trailers, infomercial's form company's seen in the film and fake news reels. This kind of marketing continued for all three films and other information was made available including one big link between Cloverfield and the Cloverfield Paradox. The last scene of the first film, the scene that was set before everything that happened with the couple by the beach shows something falling from the sky in the background, this is part of the Cloverfield space station.
With the revelation that the creatures now exist all through time a fourth film was rumoured - Overlord- however, even though the film was made by the same company and the same people it was never part of the Cloverfield universe and is/was meant to be the start of it's own franchise. Even though it could easily fit even as a ret con.

Emma (229 KP) rated Cold Comfort Farm in Books
Apr 12, 2021
I bought this book ages ago because I watched the film and enjoyed it.
Every review I've seen has said how comical the story is, and how good a book it is.
I must admit I laughed a couple of times, and I enjoyed the story, it was well written and I got through it quite quickly.
That being said however, reading it in 2021, I found certain aspects of it slightly offensive. And also thought the way that she portrayed the starkadders was quite cruel. To me the book portrayed a sense of 'us city folk are better than you country folk.' . Maybe that was the big joke, but I didn't find it very amusing.
All on all it was an alright read, definitely nothing amazing as I've always thought it was hyped up to be.
Every review I've seen has said how comical the story is, and how good a book it is.
I must admit I laughed a couple of times, and I enjoyed the story, it was well written and I got through it quite quickly.
That being said however, reading it in 2021, I found certain aspects of it slightly offensive. And also thought the way that she portrayed the starkadders was quite cruel. To me the book portrayed a sense of 'us city folk are better than you country folk.' . Maybe that was the big joke, but I didn't find it very amusing.
All on all it was an alright read, definitely nothing amazing as I've always thought it was hyped up to be.

Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Starship Troopers (1997) in Movies
May 30, 2018
It is a great film and in the category of action Sci-Fi one of the best.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Starship Troopers is a great Science Fiction movie. It is based on a book by Robert A. Heinlein. In the future, mankind is exploring the universe and encroach upon the territory of alien bugs and war begins. The insects are only responding to a threat of their territory and are trying to fight off the invaders. The clever use of insects as the aliens makes this film stand apart from other space movies.
The cast is great. It is made up of great actors, many of who at the time were relatively unknown including Casper Van Dien, Dina Meyer, Jake Busey and Denise Richards, mixed with established stars like Clancy Brown, Neil Patrick Harris and Michael Ironside, taking minor roles. The star of the movie is hard to choose between Dina Meyer, Casper Van Dien (both of who suffered injuries while making this, Casper broke a rib and Dina suffered a concussion) and the bugs! However I am going to have to say the bugs are the stars. The use of real and CGI in this film is great. The bugs are a formidable foe and a very creative one. They are numerous and relentless. Cleverly the use of different species of bugs makes for some great surprises.
The battles are epic and bloody. This is not a film for the squeamish, every battle is like a futuristic opening scene to Saving Private Ryan. People die in horrific ways, bodies and limbs are ripped apart and even main characters don't always survive, something I always appreciate in a film as it keeps the viewer guessing.
But it is not all about war, there is a good amount of comedy and even romance in this movie. It is a great film and in the category of action Sci-Fi one of the best.
The cast is great. It is made up of great actors, many of who at the time were relatively unknown including Casper Van Dien, Dina Meyer, Jake Busey and Denise Richards, mixed with established stars like Clancy Brown, Neil Patrick Harris and Michael Ironside, taking minor roles. The star of the movie is hard to choose between Dina Meyer, Casper Van Dien (both of who suffered injuries while making this, Casper broke a rib and Dina suffered a concussion) and the bugs! However I am going to have to say the bugs are the stars. The use of real and CGI in this film is great. The bugs are a formidable foe and a very creative one. They are numerous and relentless. Cleverly the use of different species of bugs makes for some great surprises.
The battles are epic and bloody. This is not a film for the squeamish, every battle is like a futuristic opening scene to Saving Private Ryan. People die in horrific ways, bodies and limbs are ripped apart and even main characters don't always survive, something I always appreciate in a film as it keeps the viewer guessing.
But it is not all about war, there is a good amount of comedy and even romance in this movie. It is a great film and in the category of action Sci-Fi one of the best.

Women, Monstrosity and Horror Film: Gynaehorror
Book
Women occupy a privileged place in horror film. Horror is a space of entertainment and excitement,...

BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Dec 14, 2018
One of the best of 2018
When the dust is settled on 2018, you can be rest assured that GREEN BOOK will be listed as one of my top films of the year.
Yes, it's that good.
"Based on a true story", GREEN BOOK stars Viggo Mortenson (Aragon in the LOTR films) as "Tony Lip" a bouncer at the Copacabana in the early 1960's who is tapped by African American concert pianist Dr. Don Shirley (Academy Award winner Mahershala Ali) to be his driver/escort/security on a tour of a very prejudicial Southern part of the United States in the early 1960's. Both Tony and Dr. Don look down their noses at the other one, but during the course of this film, the two develop mutual respect and a friendship that lasted until the both passed away in 2013.
That is, in essence, the entire plot of this film. But it is not the destination, but rather, the journey that is the core of this film - and what a journey it is.
We, the audience, probably spend 70% of the film in a car with the 2 stars of this film, so they better be interesting to look at and listen to (for nothing much else happens) and both characters - and both actors- are up to the task.
Ali won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his brief turn in Barry Jenkins MOONLIGHT - and he is even better here as Dr. Don Shirley, an elitist virtuoso piano player, with strong pride and hidden secrets of his own. Ali brings a humanity and vulnerability to this character that acts as a softening of the hard shell of this character that allows us, the audience, a glimpse into this character's heart. This person could easily have been a one-note caricature, but in Ali's hands, it is much, much more.
The biggest surprise to me is two-time Oscar Nominee Mortenson as "Tony Lip". While the character starts as a typical early 1960's Italian-mob type, Mortenson brings humor, humanity and (yes) heart to a matter-of-fact character and continues to evolve the rough edges of Tony as Tony, himself, develops throughout the course of the film. I have always "liked but not loved" Mortenson, but, I LOVE HIM in this film and will be rooting for him come Oscars time.
The other big surprise of this film is the strong, subtle and human way that Director Peter Farrelly brings events to the screen. Prior to this, Farrelly (along with his brother Bobby) Directed such over-the-top comedies as THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN, so I was a bit concerned that the Direction would be over-the-top. But...it wasn't...and I wouldn't be surprised if Farelly's name is called when Oscar nominations are announced.
I was charmed and moved by these characters - and this story - and was glad to spend 2 hours with them.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Yes, it's that good.
"Based on a true story", GREEN BOOK stars Viggo Mortenson (Aragon in the LOTR films) as "Tony Lip" a bouncer at the Copacabana in the early 1960's who is tapped by African American concert pianist Dr. Don Shirley (Academy Award winner Mahershala Ali) to be his driver/escort/security on a tour of a very prejudicial Southern part of the United States in the early 1960's. Both Tony and Dr. Don look down their noses at the other one, but during the course of this film, the two develop mutual respect and a friendship that lasted until the both passed away in 2013.
That is, in essence, the entire plot of this film. But it is not the destination, but rather, the journey that is the core of this film - and what a journey it is.
We, the audience, probably spend 70% of the film in a car with the 2 stars of this film, so they better be interesting to look at and listen to (for nothing much else happens) and both characters - and both actors- are up to the task.
Ali won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his brief turn in Barry Jenkins MOONLIGHT - and he is even better here as Dr. Don Shirley, an elitist virtuoso piano player, with strong pride and hidden secrets of his own. Ali brings a humanity and vulnerability to this character that acts as a softening of the hard shell of this character that allows us, the audience, a glimpse into this character's heart. This person could easily have been a one-note caricature, but in Ali's hands, it is much, much more.
The biggest surprise to me is two-time Oscar Nominee Mortenson as "Tony Lip". While the character starts as a typical early 1960's Italian-mob type, Mortenson brings humor, humanity and (yes) heart to a matter-of-fact character and continues to evolve the rough edges of Tony as Tony, himself, develops throughout the course of the film. I have always "liked but not loved" Mortenson, but, I LOVE HIM in this film and will be rooting for him come Oscars time.
The other big surprise of this film is the strong, subtle and human way that Director Peter Farrelly brings events to the screen. Prior to this, Farrelly (along with his brother Bobby) Directed such over-the-top comedies as THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN, so I was a bit concerned that the Direction would be over-the-top. But...it wasn't...and I wouldn't be surprised if Farelly's name is called when Oscar nominations are announced.
I was charmed and moved by these characters - and this story - and was glad to spend 2 hours with them.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)

Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Limehouse Golem (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
The community of Limehouse in Victorian London have been rocked by a series of murders. They have called the mudered the Golem, as only such a creature could have done these heinous acts.
Elizabeth Cree, the music hall star, has been arrested for the poisoning of her husband John Cree on the same night as the last Golem murder. But when evidence is found by Inspector John Kildare that links John Cree to the murders, he sets about trying to solve both cases so that he might save Elizabeth from hanging for her crime.
Their investigation leads them to an exclusive reading room at the library, and a book on the art of murder. Within its pages are hand written notes chronicling the Golem murders to date. Only four men entered the reading room when the last entry was made; Dan Leno, Karl Marx, George Gissing and John Cree. Can the inspector eliminate the other three men and prove Cree is the Golem in order to save Elizabeth?
I was looking forward to this one. Some top actors were involved, and I love a bit of Victorian era murder. The film itself was good throughout, I can't fault it for the scenery and acting.
But...
Those of you that know me, know that I don't think about films. I'm sure I keep saying this. I watch them to have some fun, to escape reality, so what's the point in picking apart something that's made as a fiction to entertain you?
Even with me suspending my brain function for the duration of the film, I paused and thought... oh, this is what's going to happen... and it did. It felt a bit cliche, like the twist had been overused in every film like this that I'd seen. I don't think it was designed that way though. There was a clear moment in the film where they want you to know what is happening, but the realisation of the ending cam much earlier than this. And it was disappointing. I was enjoying the film a lot until I realised what was coming. Talking to my movie buddy I discovered that I wasn't the only one who had this feeling. It's such a shame, but the twist felt so obvious to me that I was suddenly very disappointed.
I have taken to looking at Rotten Tomatoes after seeing a film, and this one is currently sitting at 77% with critics and 61% with the audience. I'd say that's about right. I've left the major spoiler out of here, but if you're familiar with this sort of story then I don't think you'd be hard pressed to work it out. It is an excellent film in it's genre, but it was let down, for me, by the obvious direction it went in.
Elizabeth Cree, the music hall star, has been arrested for the poisoning of her husband John Cree on the same night as the last Golem murder. But when evidence is found by Inspector John Kildare that links John Cree to the murders, he sets about trying to solve both cases so that he might save Elizabeth from hanging for her crime.
Their investigation leads them to an exclusive reading room at the library, and a book on the art of murder. Within its pages are hand written notes chronicling the Golem murders to date. Only four men entered the reading room when the last entry was made; Dan Leno, Karl Marx, George Gissing and John Cree. Can the inspector eliminate the other three men and prove Cree is the Golem in order to save Elizabeth?
I was looking forward to this one. Some top actors were involved, and I love a bit of Victorian era murder. The film itself was good throughout, I can't fault it for the scenery and acting.
But...
Those of you that know me, know that I don't think about films. I'm sure I keep saying this. I watch them to have some fun, to escape reality, so what's the point in picking apart something that's made as a fiction to entertain you?
Even with me suspending my brain function for the duration of the film, I paused and thought... oh, this is what's going to happen... and it did. It felt a bit cliche, like the twist had been overused in every film like this that I'd seen. I don't think it was designed that way though. There was a clear moment in the film where they want you to know what is happening, but the realisation of the ending cam much earlier than this. And it was disappointing. I was enjoying the film a lot until I realised what was coming. Talking to my movie buddy I discovered that I wasn't the only one who had this feeling. It's such a shame, but the twist felt so obvious to me that I was suddenly very disappointed.
I have taken to looking at Rotten Tomatoes after seeing a film, and this one is currently sitting at 77% with critics and 61% with the audience. I'd say that's about right. I've left the major spoiler out of here, but if you're familiar with this sort of story then I don't think you'd be hard pressed to work it out. It is an excellent film in it's genre, but it was let down, for me, by the obvious direction it went in.

Leanne Crabtree (480 KP) rated Interview with the Vampire (The Vampire Chronicles, #1) in Books
Jan 6, 2021
Listening to this as an audiobook/MP3 CD was the only way I was going to read this. It's not my usual read at all. I like my vampire stories but I love them to have romance in them, this was very low on that--at least in the respect I mean. There's lot of mentions of love and passion but I think they meant it in the sire/fledgling way--I think anyway.
I haven't seen the film and I'm not thinking of watching it anytime soon, though it may be something I enjoy more that way than by reading/listening to it.
Not my kind of book but at least I've read/listened to it.
I haven't seen the film and I'm not thinking of watching it anytime soon, though it may be something I enjoy more that way than by reading/listening to it.
Not my kind of book but at least I've read/listened to it.