Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Abominable Snowman (1957) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019 (Updated Oct 24, 2019)
Due to its ensemble cast, gorgeous aesthetics and whodunit storyline, it’s safe to say that I had high expectations for Knives Out.
I’m pleased to report that it surpassed each and every one of them.
Rian Johnson’s tale of mystery follows the death of renowned crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer), which took place after his 85th birthday. Presumed to be a murder, his eccentric and very large family are soon under investigation by Detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) and his team.
Straight away, Daniel Craig steals the show with his hilarious performance of Detective Blanc. From his deep Southern American drawl to his quirky mannerisms, this is so far removed from what you’d expect from a Craig performance. I’ve never seen him have this much fun in a role before.
He’s tasked with getting to the bottom of what happened, which involves a delightful series of interviews in which the family are sitting in front of several display knives, just one of the many eccentricities of the Thrombey manor house. In terms of set design it’s just glorious to look at, and even one of the characters compares it to a Cluedo board.
Even the characters themselves are quirky enough to be boxed up inside the classic board game, and could give the likes of Miss Scarlet and Colonel Mustard a run for their money.
Characters include Thrombey’s daughter and real estate mogul Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis), her husband Richard (Don Johnson), and outcast trust fund son Ransom (Chris Evans), who form quite the dysfunctional family even when you remove them from the bigger picture.
Then there’s the rather insufferable, yet hugely entertaining, lifestyle guru Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette) and her daughter and social activist Meg (Katherine Langford). These two characters are parodies of popular blogging culture and ‘social justice warriors’, and they’re hilarious.
Each character has been wonderfully crafted by Rian Johnson, who both wrote and directed Knives Out. They’re essentially caricatures, but the result of this is a thoroughly entertaining cinema experience. What a brilliant use of such a talented cast.
The only seemingly normal person wrapped up in all this is caretaker Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), who acted as both a friend and nurse to Harlan prior to his death. Even against a backdrop of such bold characters, de Armas’ performance shines just as brightly.
Mysteries are hard to get right, and being able to predict the ending is a bragging right for many cinephiles. Well unfortunately, this script absolutely floored me with how fantastic it was, and I was unable to predict anything that went down. Johnson has serious talent when it comes to crafting a murder-mystery.
Don’t even get me started on how gorgeous the wardrobe in this film is either. If anyone knows where I can get Jamie Lee Curtis’ striking red suit, you need to tell me immediately.
Watching Knives Out was the most fun I’ve had in the cinema this year, perhaps ever. I was fully engrossed from start to finish, and walked out with the biggest smile on my face.
If you see one film this autumn, make it this one. You won’t regret it.
I’m pleased to report that it surpassed each and every one of them.
Rian Johnson’s tale of mystery follows the death of renowned crime novelist Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer), which took place after his 85th birthday. Presumed to be a murder, his eccentric and very large family are soon under investigation by Detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) and his team.
Straight away, Daniel Craig steals the show with his hilarious performance of Detective Blanc. From his deep Southern American drawl to his quirky mannerisms, this is so far removed from what you’d expect from a Craig performance. I’ve never seen him have this much fun in a role before.
He’s tasked with getting to the bottom of what happened, which involves a delightful series of interviews in which the family are sitting in front of several display knives, just one of the many eccentricities of the Thrombey manor house. In terms of set design it’s just glorious to look at, and even one of the characters compares it to a Cluedo board.
Even the characters themselves are quirky enough to be boxed up inside the classic board game, and could give the likes of Miss Scarlet and Colonel Mustard a run for their money.
Characters include Thrombey’s daughter and real estate mogul Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis), her husband Richard (Don Johnson), and outcast trust fund son Ransom (Chris Evans), who form quite the dysfunctional family even when you remove them from the bigger picture.
Then there’s the rather insufferable, yet hugely entertaining, lifestyle guru Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette) and her daughter and social activist Meg (Katherine Langford). These two characters are parodies of popular blogging culture and ‘social justice warriors’, and they’re hilarious.
Each character has been wonderfully crafted by Rian Johnson, who both wrote and directed Knives Out. They’re essentially caricatures, but the result of this is a thoroughly entertaining cinema experience. What a brilliant use of such a talented cast.
The only seemingly normal person wrapped up in all this is caretaker Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), who acted as both a friend and nurse to Harlan prior to his death. Even against a backdrop of such bold characters, de Armas’ performance shines just as brightly.
Mysteries are hard to get right, and being able to predict the ending is a bragging right for many cinephiles. Well unfortunately, this script absolutely floored me with how fantastic it was, and I was unable to predict anything that went down. Johnson has serious talent when it comes to crafting a murder-mystery.
Don’t even get me started on how gorgeous the wardrobe in this film is either. If anyone knows where I can get Jamie Lee Curtis’ striking red suit, you need to tell me immediately.
Watching Knives Out was the most fun I’ve had in the cinema this year, perhaps ever. I was fully engrossed from start to finish, and walked out with the biggest smile on my face.
If you see one film this autumn, make it this one. You won’t regret it.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated A Clockwork Orange in Books
Nov 11, 2019
Grab a moloko or hot chai and peet it with your rot while you viddy my malenky review with your glazzies, real horrorshow.
Welcome to the world of Alex, a 15 year old boy living in some unspecified country in an unspecified future time. What Alex enjoys is classical music and ultraviolence. Every night he and his gang terrorise the streets looking for any kind of criminal activity, the more violent the better. They steal, burgle, assault and rape, all for fun.
When Alex is caught he is put in prison and then rehabilitated using an experimental procedure. But what effect will this have on Alex? And will it produce the desired results of preventing the youth turning every night into a time of danger for all.
The first thing any reader notices about the book is that, told from Alex's point of view, he uses street slang throughout. This makes it clear that the young have their own culture and are quite separate from the adults in terms of outlook and thinking. It also makes the reading quite immersive, like learning a foreign language particularly as only a very few of the words are ever explained and must be learned from context. This makes for a steep learning curve at the start of the book but it is worth the effort. The use of slang terms for the violent acts also helps to soften them a little - clearly what Alex does is horrendous but as it is described using these terms it is perhaps not so graphic as it would be otherwise.
Like critics of the film, it would be unfair to focus purely on the violence. The book is divided neatly into three parts. In the first we follow Alex as he perpetrates a number of terrible crimes. The second part describes his experiences in prison and is rehabilitation. The third what happens when he returns to society.
Burgess is clearly trying to make a number of points about individuality and state control of its citizens, and a fairly heavy handed job he makes of it too. But this is a slight volume - the paperback I read ran to a mere 140 pages - so there is little time for subtlety.
I would say the first two sections of the book were the best. The third section suffers a little from being rushed - it would have been better to have more insight into the world of the 'new' Alex - and also of the story being driven by coincidence after coincidence. This really did make the book seem like a sort of dream sequence where previous characters appeared and suddenly took on new meanings. In fact what it reminded me most of was the interrogation sequence in Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man. This did detract from the story for me but not enough to do much damage to the tale. The ending is particularly strong and positive, in a book full of desperation it strikes the perfect counternote.
For anyone interested in the social side of 'science fiction' this is definitely worth reading. A morality tale for the future.
Rated: Frequent and extreme violence
Welcome to the world of Alex, a 15 year old boy living in some unspecified country in an unspecified future time. What Alex enjoys is classical music and ultraviolence. Every night he and his gang terrorise the streets looking for any kind of criminal activity, the more violent the better. They steal, burgle, assault and rape, all for fun.
When Alex is caught he is put in prison and then rehabilitated using an experimental procedure. But what effect will this have on Alex? And will it produce the desired results of preventing the youth turning every night into a time of danger for all.
The first thing any reader notices about the book is that, told from Alex's point of view, he uses street slang throughout. This makes it clear that the young have their own culture and are quite separate from the adults in terms of outlook and thinking. It also makes the reading quite immersive, like learning a foreign language particularly as only a very few of the words are ever explained and must be learned from context. This makes for a steep learning curve at the start of the book but it is worth the effort. The use of slang terms for the violent acts also helps to soften them a little - clearly what Alex does is horrendous but as it is described using these terms it is perhaps not so graphic as it would be otherwise.
Like critics of the film, it would be unfair to focus purely on the violence. The book is divided neatly into three parts. In the first we follow Alex as he perpetrates a number of terrible crimes. The second part describes his experiences in prison and is rehabilitation. The third what happens when he returns to society.
Burgess is clearly trying to make a number of points about individuality and state control of its citizens, and a fairly heavy handed job he makes of it too. But this is a slight volume - the paperback I read ran to a mere 140 pages - so there is little time for subtlety.
I would say the first two sections of the book were the best. The third section suffers a little from being rushed - it would have been better to have more insight into the world of the 'new' Alex - and also of the story being driven by coincidence after coincidence. This really did make the book seem like a sort of dream sequence where previous characters appeared and suddenly took on new meanings. In fact what it reminded me most of was the interrogation sequence in Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man. This did detract from the story for me but not enough to do much damage to the tale. The ending is particularly strong and positive, in a book full of desperation it strikes the perfect counternote.
For anyone interested in the social side of 'science fiction' this is definitely worth reading. A morality tale for the future.
Rated: Frequent and extreme violence
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Admins (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Glengarry Glen Ross, Clerks, A Few Good Men, The Big Short, Office Space and Waiting, What do these flicks have in common? No matter the genre they fall in they all have great writing, great dialogue and superb execution of both these factors from there core cast. While Admins may be a Low Budget independent movie it has all these key ingredients and deserves your attention.
Since Movies like Clerks and Office Space hit our screens and gave us a real good look into work life culture, well many movies have came and went since that tried to capture that magic but more often than not they fail because they lack the witty dialogue or lead cast delivery. Aaron Goodmiller and Eric Espejo have achieved a rare feat and brought us a movie that holds many similarity’s to the movies they (and we) love but also expertly elaborates becoming not only a love letter to the genre but an excellent reminder that there is still life in this genre yet.
Admins is a day in the life story of Dan and Randy. Dan and Randy are a couple of systems admins at a “government company” and much like your normal average Joe, spend most of there days figuring out how exactly to fill there work time. So yeah that’s pretty much all I can say plot wise other than what follows is a string of interesting, candid, funny as hell conversations (most notably the “Rape Card” conversation) as Dan is trying his damned hardest to better his position in the company and Randy just calls it like he sees it.
For me this flick lives in its performances and I don’t just mean from our two leads. Lets for a second talk about them though Jay Saunders as Dan the put upon employee who has the intelligence and the aspirations of making it, well I thought Saunders nailed this. Playing off him was Doug Henderson as Randy, please please please please someone pick this guy up and take him all the way. Henderson is an absolute scene stealing son of a bitch, his effortless delivery of some fairly complex dialogue makes him a joy to watch. I see a bright future for this guy. Just check out this delivery…
Both the leads are utterly brilliant but I cant take anything away from the supporting cast, Rebecca Wahls and Devon Brookshire in particular shine in there scenes as Vera and Kathy respectively, both playing very strongly off the cocky confident leads.
This recommend couldn’t be any stronger, I want you all to go check this flick out. Aaron Goodmiller has done a fantastic job on directing duties considering he was thrown into it at short notice after writer Eric Espejo had to bow out. Yes it is low budget, but this is a movie that knows where it lives and what its strengths are, complex witty dialogue and a brilliant cast that can deliver. Admins uses those strengths to there fullest and truly is a gem of a movie not to be missed.
So with that in mind here is where you can get a hold of it, and I suggest you do…
Since Movies like Clerks and Office Space hit our screens and gave us a real good look into work life culture, well many movies have came and went since that tried to capture that magic but more often than not they fail because they lack the witty dialogue or lead cast delivery. Aaron Goodmiller and Eric Espejo have achieved a rare feat and brought us a movie that holds many similarity’s to the movies they (and we) love but also expertly elaborates becoming not only a love letter to the genre but an excellent reminder that there is still life in this genre yet.
Admins is a day in the life story of Dan and Randy. Dan and Randy are a couple of systems admins at a “government company” and much like your normal average Joe, spend most of there days figuring out how exactly to fill there work time. So yeah that’s pretty much all I can say plot wise other than what follows is a string of interesting, candid, funny as hell conversations (most notably the “Rape Card” conversation) as Dan is trying his damned hardest to better his position in the company and Randy just calls it like he sees it.
For me this flick lives in its performances and I don’t just mean from our two leads. Lets for a second talk about them though Jay Saunders as Dan the put upon employee who has the intelligence and the aspirations of making it, well I thought Saunders nailed this. Playing off him was Doug Henderson as Randy, please please please please someone pick this guy up and take him all the way. Henderson is an absolute scene stealing son of a bitch, his effortless delivery of some fairly complex dialogue makes him a joy to watch. I see a bright future for this guy. Just check out this delivery…
Both the leads are utterly brilliant but I cant take anything away from the supporting cast, Rebecca Wahls and Devon Brookshire in particular shine in there scenes as Vera and Kathy respectively, both playing very strongly off the cocky confident leads.
This recommend couldn’t be any stronger, I want you all to go check this flick out. Aaron Goodmiller has done a fantastic job on directing duties considering he was thrown into it at short notice after writer Eric Espejo had to bow out. Yes it is low budget, but this is a movie that knows where it lives and what its strengths are, complex witty dialogue and a brilliant cast that can deliver. Admins uses those strengths to there fullest and truly is a gem of a movie not to be missed.
So with that in mind here is where you can get a hold of it, and I suggest you do…
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated That's My Boy (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Adam Sandler movies have often been a mixed bag. For every “The Wedding Singer” and “50 First Dates” there are several forgettable offerings like “Little Nicky”, “I Now Prounounce You Chuck and Larry”, and “8 Crazy Nights”. To be fair there’ve also been several guilty pleasures such as “Happy Gilmore” and “The Waterboy” along the way. Sadly, his recent offerings, culminating in the disastrous “Jack and Jill”, have given me very low expectations for his new film “That’s My Boy” which pairs Sandler with former Saturday Night Live star Andy Samberg.
Sandler stars as Donny, a down-on his luck former celebrity who gained notoriety after impregnating his teacher at 13. While the teacher (Eva Amurri Martino) went on to a 30-year prison sentence, Donny used his notoriety to become a pop culture sensation. Unfortunately for Donny fame was fleeting and he wasted the money he had accumulated along the way. We soon learn Donny faces a prison sentence unless he comes up with $45,000 to pay back taxes.
Desperate, he turns to his estranged son Todd (Andy Samberg), who has pretty much disowned his father and does not even go by is given birth name. Todd is about to marry a socialite named Jamie (Leighton Meester), and since he is a numbers genius with an extremely bright future with a partnership pending, the arrival of his crude, drunken father, is a disaster in the making. Passing himself off as long-lost friend, Donny attempts to reconnect with his son and naturally this happens over some very vulgar and awkward moments, not all of which are limited to bachelor party scenes.
Of course anybody who has seen any of Sandler’s films will know the formula that follows: crude situations followed by conflict, mixed with celebrity cameos and an ’80s soundtrack tossed in with a few laughs along the way towards a tidy ending. To say that there is a definite formula to his films would be an understatement and Sandler gives the impression that he’s making up many of the scenes as he goes along, all the while sporting a hybrid Boston/Little Nicky accent.
What ultimately sells the film is the energy and effort that the cast puts into their performances. While the plot can be charitably described as disjointed, there are several scenes that are LOL-inducing, especially those with James Caan as an angry priest and with Vanilla Ice and Todd Bridges lampooning their faded glory.
While the film is a bit cruder than most of Sandler’s usual fare it is, for the most part, good-natured and lighthearted. Obviously nobody is expected to take the film seriously. Samberg does a good job playing the restrained uptight Todd, and in the scenes where he lets loose, shows solid working chemistry with Sandler.
While it is not a great cinematic comedy it certainly has more than its fair share of laughs along the way, just as long as you’re willing to overlook the lackluster plot and uneven pacing of the film.
Sandler stars as Donny, a down-on his luck former celebrity who gained notoriety after impregnating his teacher at 13. While the teacher (Eva Amurri Martino) went on to a 30-year prison sentence, Donny used his notoriety to become a pop culture sensation. Unfortunately for Donny fame was fleeting and he wasted the money he had accumulated along the way. We soon learn Donny faces a prison sentence unless he comes up with $45,000 to pay back taxes.
Desperate, he turns to his estranged son Todd (Andy Samberg), who has pretty much disowned his father and does not even go by is given birth name. Todd is about to marry a socialite named Jamie (Leighton Meester), and since he is a numbers genius with an extremely bright future with a partnership pending, the arrival of his crude, drunken father, is a disaster in the making. Passing himself off as long-lost friend, Donny attempts to reconnect with his son and naturally this happens over some very vulgar and awkward moments, not all of which are limited to bachelor party scenes.
Of course anybody who has seen any of Sandler’s films will know the formula that follows: crude situations followed by conflict, mixed with celebrity cameos and an ’80s soundtrack tossed in with a few laughs along the way towards a tidy ending. To say that there is a definite formula to his films would be an understatement and Sandler gives the impression that he’s making up many of the scenes as he goes along, all the while sporting a hybrid Boston/Little Nicky accent.
What ultimately sells the film is the energy and effort that the cast puts into their performances. While the plot can be charitably described as disjointed, there are several scenes that are LOL-inducing, especially those with James Caan as an angry priest and with Vanilla Ice and Todd Bridges lampooning their faded glory.
While the film is a bit cruder than most of Sandler’s usual fare it is, for the most part, good-natured and lighthearted. Obviously nobody is expected to take the film seriously. Samberg does a good job playing the restrained uptight Todd, and in the scenes where he lets loose, shows solid working chemistry with Sandler.
While it is not a great cinematic comedy it certainly has more than its fair share of laughs along the way, just as long as you’re willing to overlook the lackluster plot and uneven pacing of the film.
156Reviews (7 KP) rated True History of the Kelly Gang (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020
One of the main things that divides opinion on Ned Kelly is was he on the side of good or bad? Some see him as a kind of freedom fighter, standing up to the British, who at the time that looked to suppress and demean the Australian people. Some see him as a criminal, who murdered innocent people for reasons known only to him. Both of these opinions may be true, neither of them might be, but it's one hell of a gamble to base a film on someone that divides opinion that much.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
Johnny Marr recommended track Gimme Danger by Iggy And The Stooges in Michigan Palace, 10/6/73 by Iggy And The Stooges in Music (curated)
Natasha Khan recommended Bad by Michael Jackson in Music (curated)
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated X-Men Red, Vol. 1: The Hate Machine in Books
Nov 30, 2020
While I was starting to tire of Tom Taylor's run on ALL-NEW WOLVERINE (I didn't hate it or anything, I just was starting to tire of some of the humor incorporated in the series. Still, if I had to decide between him and Tamiko, who took over after him on the X-23 series, I would take Taylor for another run, no question!), I wasn't sure if I wanted to read any X-Men stories leading into "Dawn of X". I also had lost a lot of interest in the X-franchise, as the stories were just awful (yes, Bendis and Hopeless, I am talking about you both in this sentence!)! However, I have gotten back on board with the wonderful re-invigoration of the mutants, making them cool again! Thus, when the recent Comixology sale came through, I took advantage of snagging both Volumes!
Dear God, this was some solid writing here! Edgy as heck, VERY socially relevent ("mutant hate" subbing in for "immigrant hate"!), and more representative of the team as a whole! I seriously wanted to sit up in bed and cheer last night, as I found myself coming to the end of this first volume!
I know there has been some off-handed remarks towards this series, citing its content as being too "on the nose" as far as the social relevance of what was being portrayed. There has also been that <b>waaaay</b> TOO OVER-USED word "SJW" thrown out, when forward-thinking makes some folks have to <i>think</i> a bit <u>too</u> forwardly! Yeah, well, maybe that's the only way to get the message across, as trying to do it subtle-like, leads to the overly message often getting missed or brushed off!
I applaud Tom Taylor for his writing here. The feeling I got from reading this was it not only began to reset the X-line in a positive, and very socially relevant way, but it also helped set the stage for what would lead into Moira's "Dawn of X" temporal reboot! Not only that, but for me, anyways, it helped restore the X-Men as being heroes and doing truly heroic deeds again! Something we most definitely need in this racially-imbalanced toxicity that is the current state of our culture! Thank you, Tom!!
My only quibble with the series, and it is more of a superficial quibble at best, was Kurt (Nightcrawler) sporting facial hair. I dunno. With all the negative connotation that hipsters have been generating with the whole <i>"I just rolled out from under a dumpster!"</i> look for those that choose to adopt the regrettable "neck-beard" look! Yeah, can't think of Kurt as anything other than clean-shaven! But, it did not take away from the story in any way! Just like I ignore hipsters, whether sporting a "neck-beard" or just in general, I was able to forget about it! lol
Again, I loved this book! Looking forward to starting Volume 2 tonight! Still not sure if this is for you? Ask yourself what makes a hero a Hero, and chances are, you will find yourself enjoying what is a solid read!
Dear God, this was some solid writing here! Edgy as heck, VERY socially relevent ("mutant hate" subbing in for "immigrant hate"!), and more representative of the team as a whole! I seriously wanted to sit up in bed and cheer last night, as I found myself coming to the end of this first volume!
I know there has been some off-handed remarks towards this series, citing its content as being too "on the nose" as far as the social relevance of what was being portrayed. There has also been that <b>waaaay</b> TOO OVER-USED word "SJW" thrown out, when forward-thinking makes some folks have to <i>think</i> a bit <u>too</u> forwardly! Yeah, well, maybe that's the only way to get the message across, as trying to do it subtle-like, leads to the overly message often getting missed or brushed off!
I applaud Tom Taylor for his writing here. The feeling I got from reading this was it not only began to reset the X-line in a positive, and very socially relevant way, but it also helped set the stage for what would lead into Moira's "Dawn of X" temporal reboot! Not only that, but for me, anyways, it helped restore the X-Men as being heroes and doing truly heroic deeds again! Something we most definitely need in this racially-imbalanced toxicity that is the current state of our culture! Thank you, Tom!!
My only quibble with the series, and it is more of a superficial quibble at best, was Kurt (Nightcrawler) sporting facial hair. I dunno. With all the negative connotation that hipsters have been generating with the whole <i>"I just rolled out from under a dumpster!"</i> look for those that choose to adopt the regrettable "neck-beard" look! Yeah, can't think of Kurt as anything other than clean-shaven! But, it did not take away from the story in any way! Just like I ignore hipsters, whether sporting a "neck-beard" or just in general, I was able to forget about it! lol
Again, I loved this book! Looking forward to starting Volume 2 tonight! Still not sure if this is for you? Ask yourself what makes a hero a Hero, and chances are, you will find yourself enjoying what is a solid read!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in Movies
Nov 16, 2021
Back in 1984 when big hair and neon were the norms; a movie appeared that soon became a cultural phenomenon. The movie involved a team of unlikely Paranormal Investigators and the mix of comedy, FX, and Ghosts turned the movie into a smash hit and a Pop Culture mainstay. The abundance of products that followed and the inescapable theme song and tagline soon gave rise to a sequel which while a success; did not resonate the way the original film had and thus the “Ghostbusters” film franchise became dormant.
While a successful video game and merchandise line kept the franchise alive; the 2016 reboot with an all-female team failed to capture the magic at the box office and again put the franchise’s cinematic future in question.
Thankfully after several delays due to the Covid 19 Pandemic; “Ghostbusters Afterlife” has arrived and is the worthy sequel that does justice to the original film and sets the stage well for future cinematic exploits.
The film follows a down on her luck mother named Callie )Carrie Coon) and her children Trevor (Finn Wolfhard); and Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), as they are forced to move to a dilapidated farm in rural Oklahoma following the passing of Callie’s estranged father and her subsequent eviction.
A series of unexplained earthquakes clues the smart and precocious Phoebe that something is up and with her new friend Podcast (Logan Kim), and teacher Mr. Grooberson (Paul Rudd); help her uncover her connection to the original Ghostbusters and the abundance and significance of the gear that her Grandfather has left on the farm.
Things soon take a turn for the worse and despite skeptical locals and the emerging danger, Phoebe, Trevor, and their friends have to battle the forces of evil to save the world.
The movie takes its time getting to the action and spends plenty of time establishing the characters, their motivations, and their relationships with one another. There are abundant homages to the original film; some of which are very subtle and clever but never seem gratuitous or tacked on.
The film also does not rely on the FX to tell the tale as while there are some solid effects in the film; this is a character-driven tale and the new cast works well with some surprise guests who pop up throughout the film.
Director Jason Reitman; son of the Director of the original film; clearly knows and loves the material as he not only helped craft the story but deftly weaves a new tale into the franchise which also fits well with the first film and does not attempt to reboot but rather continue the franchise.
There are two extra scenes in the credits that you will not want to miss as not only are they great fun; but also tease of future adventures to come.
The film also has a few touching moments that caused some unexpected emotion from the audience at our Press Screening and helped establish “Ghostbusters Afterlife” as not only a winning entry into the series but also one of the most enjoyable films of the year.
4.5 stars out of 5.
While a successful video game and merchandise line kept the franchise alive; the 2016 reboot with an all-female team failed to capture the magic at the box office and again put the franchise’s cinematic future in question.
Thankfully after several delays due to the Covid 19 Pandemic; “Ghostbusters Afterlife” has arrived and is the worthy sequel that does justice to the original film and sets the stage well for future cinematic exploits.
The film follows a down on her luck mother named Callie )Carrie Coon) and her children Trevor (Finn Wolfhard); and Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), as they are forced to move to a dilapidated farm in rural Oklahoma following the passing of Callie’s estranged father and her subsequent eviction.
A series of unexplained earthquakes clues the smart and precocious Phoebe that something is up and with her new friend Podcast (Logan Kim), and teacher Mr. Grooberson (Paul Rudd); help her uncover her connection to the original Ghostbusters and the abundance and significance of the gear that her Grandfather has left on the farm.
Things soon take a turn for the worse and despite skeptical locals and the emerging danger, Phoebe, Trevor, and their friends have to battle the forces of evil to save the world.
The movie takes its time getting to the action and spends plenty of time establishing the characters, their motivations, and their relationships with one another. There are abundant homages to the original film; some of which are very subtle and clever but never seem gratuitous or tacked on.
The film also does not rely on the FX to tell the tale as while there are some solid effects in the film; this is a character-driven tale and the new cast works well with some surprise guests who pop up throughout the film.
Director Jason Reitman; son of the Director of the original film; clearly knows and loves the material as he not only helped craft the story but deftly weaves a new tale into the franchise which also fits well with the first film and does not attempt to reboot but rather continue the franchise.
There are two extra scenes in the credits that you will not want to miss as not only are they great fun; but also tease of future adventures to come.
The film also has a few touching moments that caused some unexpected emotion from the audience at our Press Screening and helped establish “Ghostbusters Afterlife” as not only a winning entry into the series but also one of the most enjoyable films of the year.
4.5 stars out of 5.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
Not Quite Ready
I saw this movie in the cinema back when it came out in March earlier this year and I honestly didn't feel ready to review it after a single viewing because of all of the references etc that there was to take in. After watching the movie a couple more times and watching a bunch of Easter Egg videos on Youtube, I feel more equipped to discuss the film.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.