Search
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
This one is pretty straightforward - The Thing (2011) is an ok film that is completely dwarfed by The Thing (1982) - honestly, fuck knows why it doesn't have a different title.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
This prequel to the iconic John Carpenter movie does have some decent aspects to it - it has a mostly agreeable cast and a good screenplay that's engaging, although a vast majority of the characters are hugely forgettable, and not a patch on the crew of protagonists from the 82 film. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a perfectly likable leading lady, but everyone else is just kind of there. Even Joel Edgerton blends in with the furniture.
I also think it has good pacing for the most part - the opening third builds things up nicely, and when things finally kick off, it feels earned.
The attention to detail is admirable as well, with various objects and hints of past chaos found by Kurt Russell and co in the 82 film being placed perfectly.
Unfortunately, the end project suffers from a couple of things. Most infamously, the CGI is ropey, and is an ill advised addition considering the 82 film boasts some of the best practical effects in cinema history. This is made even worse by the fact that practical effects and animatronics were initially used before being smothered in digital effects to the point where it actively makes the whole movie less enjoyable. The narrative also apes the Carpenter classic a little too often for my taste, and serves more of a reminder of that film, rather than feeling like a homage.
The final act is just silly as well. After a strong build up, the climax snowballs into uninteresting bad-Predator-sequel-esque nonsense, and even saves the most laughable digital effects for last, just for good measure.
I did like the very last scene though, which genuinely ties nicely into the start of the 82 film.
Messing with such an iconic horror heavyweight comes with huge risks, and ultimately, The Thing (still really hate that they didn't use a different title) isn't the car crash that it easily could have been, but it does fall flat on really important aspects, resulting in a film that is average to the casual movie goer, and is thoroughly underwhelming for fans of its far superior predecessor.
Gangstar: West Coast Hustle
Games
App
OPTIMIZED FOR iPHONE 4! High-definition graphics that fully utilize the iPhone 4 Retina display. ...
Kati Kati (2016)
Movie Watch
Without any recollection of what happened before, young Kaleche finds herself in the middle of the...
international drama
Evvie Drake Starts Over
10.0
Rate It
Book
NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER - #ReadWithJenna Book Club Pick as Featured on Today - "Everything a...
Explosive Demolition Truck
Games and Education
App
A fun, cute and exciting interactive app for Kids! Ride along on the Explosive Demolition Truck as...
Lee (2222 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Oct 5, 2018 (Updated Oct 16, 2018)
A bit rough around the edges, but pretty enjoyable overall
Contains spoilers, click to show
The run up to seeing Venom has followed what seems to be a bit of a growing trend for me recently - tickets go on sale for a movie that I'm very excited to see and despite the slightly average trailers, I grab a ticket and hope for the best. Then in the days beforehand, a load of negative reviews appear online and I really hope that they're all wrong, like they all were with Hereditary. Recently we've had The Nun, then The Predator, and now Venom. I was really hoping this wasn't going to be three in a row!
A space probe is returning to Earth. We hear the astronauts communicating with a team back home. They're talking about some 'specimens' that they're bringing back, and then something goes wrong onboard and the rocket crashes to Earth, landing somewhere in Malaysia. The probe belongs to bio-engineering company Life Foundation, and the specimens they're carrying are symbiotic lifeforms. Life Foundation are all over the crash site, with only one of the astronauts surviving, barely. Meanwhile, CEO Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed) is very excited by the symbiotes and returns them to the lab, becoming obsessed with assimilating them into animals. Obviously he has plans to eventually (as quickly as possible) try this out on humans. Apparently, it's all for the good of the planet or some guff like that.
Meanwhile, we're introduced to investigative journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) and his girlfriend Anne (Michelle Williams). He's basically the most unconvincing journalist I've ever seen in a movie, but the montage of clips seems determined to tell us otherwise. He has his own TV show! It's great! He's helped to uncover injustice, righted wrongs, and is apparently a nice down to earth guy. When he secures an interview with Carlton Drake from Life Foundation, he's ready to uncover some dirt, but his boss warns him not to overstep the mark. Of course, he doesn't listen, stepping over the line and getting himself fired. He also manages to lose girlfriend Anne in the process.
The next chunk of the movie is just Tom Hardy moping around, and it's not that great. I don't know if it's the script, the acting, or both. It's interspersed occasionally with scenes involving Carlton Drake looking to expose the symbiotes to human subjects - the homeless, the poor or the just plain stupid - and you start wishing they'd just hurry up and bring Venom and Eddie together, in the hopes that things will pick up a bit. Luckily, once that does happen things do pick up considerably and Tom Hardy is so much better suited as the crazy man who's feeling a little bit unwell than the sad, boring journalist. There's a good level of humour from that point on too, along with some fairly decent action.
Unfortunately though, Venom suffers from some of the same dreadful editing that The Predator did. Scenes that seem to just prematurely end suddenly and successions of rapid cuts during some of the action, making it difficult to see just what the hell is going on. Overall it's a bit rough around the edges, and definitely not as slick as your standard Marvel movie (this one is just 'in association with Marvel'). That being said, this was in no way the car crash movie that many of the reviews had lead me to believe, and on the whole I actually really enjoyed it.
A decent mid credits scene sets up some exciting potential for a further movie, but I feel they really need to tighten things up a bit in order to make another one worth seeing.
A space probe is returning to Earth. We hear the astronauts communicating with a team back home. They're talking about some 'specimens' that they're bringing back, and then something goes wrong onboard and the rocket crashes to Earth, landing somewhere in Malaysia. The probe belongs to bio-engineering company Life Foundation, and the specimens they're carrying are symbiotic lifeforms. Life Foundation are all over the crash site, with only one of the astronauts surviving, barely. Meanwhile, CEO Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed) is very excited by the symbiotes and returns them to the lab, becoming obsessed with assimilating them into animals. Obviously he has plans to eventually (as quickly as possible) try this out on humans. Apparently, it's all for the good of the planet or some guff like that.
Meanwhile, we're introduced to investigative journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) and his girlfriend Anne (Michelle Williams). He's basically the most unconvincing journalist I've ever seen in a movie, but the montage of clips seems determined to tell us otherwise. He has his own TV show! It's great! He's helped to uncover injustice, righted wrongs, and is apparently a nice down to earth guy. When he secures an interview with Carlton Drake from Life Foundation, he's ready to uncover some dirt, but his boss warns him not to overstep the mark. Of course, he doesn't listen, stepping over the line and getting himself fired. He also manages to lose girlfriend Anne in the process.
The next chunk of the movie is just Tom Hardy moping around, and it's not that great. I don't know if it's the script, the acting, or both. It's interspersed occasionally with scenes involving Carlton Drake looking to expose the symbiotes to human subjects - the homeless, the poor or the just plain stupid - and you start wishing they'd just hurry up and bring Venom and Eddie together, in the hopes that things will pick up a bit. Luckily, once that does happen things do pick up considerably and Tom Hardy is so much better suited as the crazy man who's feeling a little bit unwell than the sad, boring journalist. There's a good level of humour from that point on too, along with some fairly decent action.
Unfortunately though, Venom suffers from some of the same dreadful editing that The Predator did. Scenes that seem to just prematurely end suddenly and successions of rapid cuts during some of the action, making it difficult to see just what the hell is going on. Overall it's a bit rough around the edges, and definitely not as slick as your standard Marvel movie (this one is just 'in association with Marvel'). That being said, this was in no way the car crash movie that many of the reviews had lead me to believe, and on the whole I actually really enjoyed it.
A decent mid credits scene sets up some exciting potential for a further movie, but I feel they really need to tighten things up a bit in order to make another one worth seeing.
Ross (3282 KP) rated The Liar's Key in Books
Mar 30, 2018
Reading Mark Lawrence books, while seeing the outpouring of adoration for his works on facebook and goodreads, is quite a complicated situation to find yourself in.
I love Mark Lawrence's writing style - that is, his flowing prose and sense of humour. I love the world of the Broken Empire - a post-apocalyptic version of the world after the use of nuclear weapons (all very much implied) and where the sea level has risen, changing the geography of Europe. I like most of the characters (in that I like all aspects of some of them and some aspects of the rest of them if that makes sense).
The tricky thing is, I have mixed feelings about the way Lawrence lays his books out - to my understanding he has a high level idea of the plot but then just ... writes. He just lets it happen. Now, this isn't a car crash like it might sound, there are enough hints and pointers strewn throughout the book (or trilogy) to make it all hang together, but at times things happen that just don't quite feel right. I'm not sure if its a deus ex machine type thing or just his characters being spontaneous, but at times I found that the right thing happens despite no suggestions this should be so. Characters making illogical decisions etc.
This has been the case throughout all 5 of his books I have read now and it is starting to become an irritant. The thing is, I tend to enjoy the overall story and am glad I have read them, it's just that at times I don't enjoy the journey.
That was very much the case here - the book is considerably longer than its predecessor but without any tangible benefit from that extra word count. The first half of the book is quite a slow boring journey and except for meeting two new characters/companions and some minor plot points, there is very little purpose to it. Snorri, my favourite character from the Prince of Fools, is almost absent here - just a massive, injured, sulking lump. This puts the focus on Jalan, our thoroughly detestable narrator.
The second half sees Jalan separate from the group and head home, only to run off once again, almost without reason. There then follows a very dull section of the book where he seems to be getting ahead at last, making money on the derivatives exchange (makes Phantom Menace trade quota discussions seem positively riveting).
The conclusion of the book is excellent and points to an exciting third book.
I love Mark Lawrence's writing style - that is, his flowing prose and sense of humour. I love the world of the Broken Empire - a post-apocalyptic version of the world after the use of nuclear weapons (all very much implied) and where the sea level has risen, changing the geography of Europe. I like most of the characters (in that I like all aspects of some of them and some aspects of the rest of them if that makes sense).
The tricky thing is, I have mixed feelings about the way Lawrence lays his books out - to my understanding he has a high level idea of the plot but then just ... writes. He just lets it happen. Now, this isn't a car crash like it might sound, there are enough hints and pointers strewn throughout the book (or trilogy) to make it all hang together, but at times things happen that just don't quite feel right. I'm not sure if its a deus ex machine type thing or just his characters being spontaneous, but at times I found that the right thing happens despite no suggestions this should be so. Characters making illogical decisions etc.
This has been the case throughout all 5 of his books I have read now and it is starting to become an irritant. The thing is, I tend to enjoy the overall story and am glad I have read them, it's just that at times I don't enjoy the journey.
That was very much the case here - the book is considerably longer than its predecessor but without any tangible benefit from that extra word count. The first half of the book is quite a slow boring journey and except for meeting two new characters/companions and some minor plot points, there is very little purpose to it. Snorri, my favourite character from the Prince of Fools, is almost absent here - just a massive, injured, sulking lump. This puts the focus on Jalan, our thoroughly detestable narrator.
The second half sees Jalan separate from the group and head home, only to run off once again, almost without reason. There then follows a very dull section of the book where he seems to be getting ahead at last, making money on the derivatives exchange (makes Phantom Menace trade quota discussions seem positively riveting).
The conclusion of the book is excellent and points to an exciting third book.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is a woman with many complications as we meet her just as she is leaving her engagement ring and fiancé behind to head off to a new future. We do not know what promoted this move other than an argument, but Michelle is unmoved by his plea-laden phone calls and opts to ignore them and move ahead with her life.
Things take an unexpected turn when Michelle is involved in a car crash and awakens chained to the wall in a concrete room. Her savior Howard (John Goodman) explains that he saved her life and that they are safe 40 feet below the surface following an unexpected attack which has made the world outside the bunker deadly.
This is the premise of “10 Cloverfield Lane” which teams Producer J.J. Abrams and Director Dan Trachternberg as they craft a film that is unsettling and at times hard to define.
Michelle believes that Howard is not telling her the entire truth and his flashes of anger over trivial things causes her and fellow guest Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), to fear that things are not what they seem and that they are in serious danger.
This is where the film really becomes unsettling as Howard is shown as sympathetic and sensitive yet at times terrifyingly volatile and unstable. There are numerous things that can be inferred or deduced from what they discover, but many aspects of Howard are left for the viewers to figure out for themselves as there is much truth in what he says, but there are also several omissions and misdirection.
As the tensions mount, the film plays out as taught characters piece filled with tension that keeps you guessing what is coming next.
The film does take a Hollywood style turn towards where FX and some unexpected and to some, impractical outcomes and plotlines are introduced, but it is always compelling and does keep you asking what is coming next.
The film has some interesting loose threads that do hint that a sequel could be an option should they elect to do so down the road.
Goodman and the cast are very strong and they are able to hold your attention without having to rely on fancy visuals and other tricks.
For now, the film is a tense and compelling film that aside from taking the Hollywood way out at the end is one of the more pleasant and entertaining surprises of 2016.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/11/10-cloverfield-lane/
Things take an unexpected turn when Michelle is involved in a car crash and awakens chained to the wall in a concrete room. Her savior Howard (John Goodman) explains that he saved her life and that they are safe 40 feet below the surface following an unexpected attack which has made the world outside the bunker deadly.
This is the premise of “10 Cloverfield Lane” which teams Producer J.J. Abrams and Director Dan Trachternberg as they craft a film that is unsettling and at times hard to define.
Michelle believes that Howard is not telling her the entire truth and his flashes of anger over trivial things causes her and fellow guest Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), to fear that things are not what they seem and that they are in serious danger.
This is where the film really becomes unsettling as Howard is shown as sympathetic and sensitive yet at times terrifyingly volatile and unstable. There are numerous things that can be inferred or deduced from what they discover, but many aspects of Howard are left for the viewers to figure out for themselves as there is much truth in what he says, but there are also several omissions and misdirection.
As the tensions mount, the film plays out as taught characters piece filled with tension that keeps you guessing what is coming next.
The film does take a Hollywood style turn towards where FX and some unexpected and to some, impractical outcomes and plotlines are introduced, but it is always compelling and does keep you asking what is coming next.
The film has some interesting loose threads that do hint that a sequel could be an option should they elect to do so down the road.
Goodman and the cast are very strong and they are able to hold your attention without having to rely on fancy visuals and other tricks.
For now, the film is a tense and compelling film that aside from taking the Hollywood way out at the end is one of the more pleasant and entertaining surprises of 2016.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/11/10-cloverfield-lane/
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated IA: Initiate in Books
Nov 15, 2019
Naz seems like a normal boy. Both his parents have died and the only family he has is his younger sister Meri. Moving from foster home to foster home in the ghetto for the disadvantaged called the Exclave, earning spare money running errands for local shopkeepers.
But Naz is not a normal boy. He can remember nothing before waking up in hospital three years previously following the car crash in which his father died. And he hears voices in his head, or rather one voice which seems familiar although he does not recognise it.
Following an apparently random act of gang violence on the way to his his first day at high school, his life begins to change and he starts to question exactly who he is and what makes him the way he is.
Told from Naz's point of view the reader is drawn into his tale of discovery as he goes about is every day life of school and afterwards in the Exclave. Naz is a very likeable character, concerned for the safety of his sister above all else and suspicious of strangers. He is clever and quick witted but doesn't really use his talents, drifting through school and life in general with the minimum of effort, generally happy with his lot until he is forced to re-evaluate his life as events unfold around him.
The story is paced well with periods of Naz leading his life and going to school, which is made interesting by his observations on everything around him, interspersed with things that Naz does or sees, or that other people say and do, that really make the reader realise that there is 'something else' going on, a bigger picture that Naz is unable to put together, although he gets glimpses. There are also chapters at the start of each section describing a lecture given by Naz's father which adds some more clues.
The ideas here are certainly interesting - this is science fiction of a subtle kind, where only the edges of Naz's life are visible to both him and us, with outsiders often recognising that there is more to him, more that he can achieve. The supporting cast works well, from the hard-pressed merchants fighting the big multiple chain stores to the menacing gang members and other more eccentric inhabitants of the Exclave.
Overall a fascinating and thought provoking read, with plenty of questions left to draw the reader to the next in the series.
But Naz is not a normal boy. He can remember nothing before waking up in hospital three years previously following the car crash in which his father died. And he hears voices in his head, or rather one voice which seems familiar although he does not recognise it.
Following an apparently random act of gang violence on the way to his his first day at high school, his life begins to change and he starts to question exactly who he is and what makes him the way he is.
Told from Naz's point of view the reader is drawn into his tale of discovery as he goes about is every day life of school and afterwards in the Exclave. Naz is a very likeable character, concerned for the safety of his sister above all else and suspicious of strangers. He is clever and quick witted but doesn't really use his talents, drifting through school and life in general with the minimum of effort, generally happy with his lot until he is forced to re-evaluate his life as events unfold around him.
The story is paced well with periods of Naz leading his life and going to school, which is made interesting by his observations on everything around him, interspersed with things that Naz does or sees, or that other people say and do, that really make the reader realise that there is 'something else' going on, a bigger picture that Naz is unable to put together, although he gets glimpses. There are also chapters at the start of each section describing a lecture given by Naz's father which adds some more clues.
The ideas here are certainly interesting - this is science fiction of a subtle kind, where only the edges of Naz's life are visible to both him and us, with outsiders often recognising that there is more to him, more that he can achieve. The supporting cast works well, from the hard-pressed merchants fighting the big multiple chain stores to the menacing gang members and other more eccentric inhabitants of the Exclave.
Overall a fascinating and thought provoking read, with plenty of questions left to draw the reader to the next in the series.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2020
Stuff of nightmares
From the moment I saw the trailer, I knew I wasn't going to like this film. Having never seen the stage show, I went into this completely blind and to be honest, after 100 minutes of this nonsense I wish I was blind.
Usually I'll try to find something good to say about a film, but I'm really struggling with this. I feel like giving it a 2 is rather generous. Other than appreciating the amount of effort on the CGI and the song Memory, I really cannot identify any other good points whatsoever.
Now where do I start on the bad? The cats themselves are beyond disturbing. People dressed as cats in the stage show I can understand. Human features on cat bodies is just crazy and looks ridiculous. The fact that they alternate between 2 and 4 legged with human features, it beggars belief. I hoped I might get used to it, but i really didnt especially when they start hissing, preening and acting like real cats - it's terrifying and laughable all at once. The scaling of the cats against the scenery also looks a little misjudged, especially when they stand up.
The story and rest of the film doesn't fare much better. The songs (except for Memory) are surprisingly poor for an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, and no others are particularly memorable. The plot itself is also very thin and has barely any substance, the fact that they've managed to drag this out to 100 minutes is impressive. I also couldn't stand the words "Jellicle" and "Heaviside" - they sound like something from a kids cartoon and they began to grate on me very quickly. And the cast: James Corden, Rebel Wilson and Ray Winstone - just no. They are all so cringingly bad I could barely watch. And even acting royalty like Ian McKellen and Judi Dench don't survive this car crash intact. The final song and scenes with the direct address to camera is possibly the most embarrassingly cringeworthy thing I've seen in a long time.
It may only be January, but I doubt anything else I see in 2020 will be worse than this. I would have happily walked out of this 15 minutes in and never thought twice. The fact that I've sat through the entire thing made me want to claw my eyes out. I cannot unsee this.
If you want to watch a film musical about cats, watch The Aristocats. Do not waste your time on this!
Usually I'll try to find something good to say about a film, but I'm really struggling with this. I feel like giving it a 2 is rather generous. Other than appreciating the amount of effort on the CGI and the song Memory, I really cannot identify any other good points whatsoever.
Now where do I start on the bad? The cats themselves are beyond disturbing. People dressed as cats in the stage show I can understand. Human features on cat bodies is just crazy and looks ridiculous. The fact that they alternate between 2 and 4 legged with human features, it beggars belief. I hoped I might get used to it, but i really didnt especially when they start hissing, preening and acting like real cats - it's terrifying and laughable all at once. The scaling of the cats against the scenery also looks a little misjudged, especially when they stand up.
The story and rest of the film doesn't fare much better. The songs (except for Memory) are surprisingly poor for an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, and no others are particularly memorable. The plot itself is also very thin and has barely any substance, the fact that they've managed to drag this out to 100 minutes is impressive. I also couldn't stand the words "Jellicle" and "Heaviside" - they sound like something from a kids cartoon and they began to grate on me very quickly. And the cast: James Corden, Rebel Wilson and Ray Winstone - just no. They are all so cringingly bad I could barely watch. And even acting royalty like Ian McKellen and Judi Dench don't survive this car crash intact. The final song and scenes with the direct address to camera is possibly the most embarrassingly cringeworthy thing I've seen in a long time.
It may only be January, but I doubt anything else I see in 2020 will be worse than this. I would have happily walked out of this 15 minutes in and never thought twice. The fact that I've sat through the entire thing made me want to claw my eyes out. I cannot unsee this.
If you want to watch a film musical about cats, watch The Aristocats. Do not waste your time on this!
