Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 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 (971 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.
mostlyinpyjamas (13 KP) rated Geekerella (Once Upon a Con #1) in Books
Nov 28, 2017
Fairytale meets fandom.
The blurb: ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN ONCE UPON A CON. When geek girl Elle Wittimer sees a cosplay contest sponsored by the producers of Starfield she has to enter.
First prize is an invitation to the Excelsicon Cosplay Ball and a meet-and-greet with the actor slated to play Federation Prince Carmindor in the reboot.
Elle’s been scraping together tips from her gig at the Magic Pumpkin food truck behind her stepmothers back, and winning this contest could be her ticket out once and for all. Not to mention a fan girls dream come true.
Teen actor Darien Freeman is less than thrilled about this year’s Excelsicon. He used to live for conventions, but know they’re nothing but jaw-aching photo sessions and awkward meet-and-greets.
Playing Federation Prince Carmindor is all he’s ever wanted, but the die-hard Starfield fandom has already dismissed him as just another heartthrob.
As Excelsicon draws near, closet nerd Darien feels more and more like a fake – until he meets a girl who shows him otherwise.
Part romance, part love letter to nerd culture, and all totally adorbs, GEEKERELLA is a fairy tale for anyone who believes in the magic of fandom. ~~
Fairytale meets fandom in this modern day retelling of Cinderella.
I am always here for a new take on a well loved story, and Ashley Poston has delivered a faithful to the original story that also makes for a good tale on its own right.
I have to start by saying look at that cover! When I saw it on the shelf in Waterstones *other bookshops are available* I knew I had to buy it.
I love the modern versions of the well known characters, Elle is a Starfield nerd. Her love of the classic tv show comes from her parents, who originally founded the Starfield convention.
Catherine, the stepmother, and the stepsisters, Chloe and Cal are perfectly spiteful as overwork and under appreciate Elle.
The prince in this version is Darien, a young Hollywood golden boy with insured abs, while the fairy godmother role is filled by Sage, the punk wannabe-fashion-designer. I love Sage!
There’s also a canine sidekick, Franco, a.k.a Frank the tank, any story that includes a very good boy has the makings of a winner for me.
Ashley Poston gives a nod to the coach from the original story with The magic pumpkin, Sage’s vegan food van and the ending is perfect with the ball and even the glass shoe.
Obviously we all know how Cinderella goes but Ashley Poston gets us to the end via a geek-tastic tale of fandoms, fan blogs, cosplay conventions and the movie making world.
The way that Elle and Darien begin to get to know each other via text makes for a sweet romance, each not knowing who the other is – Darien, who Elle doesn’t believe will make a good Carmindor, and Elle, being rebelgunner the blogger who slated Darien – I’ve seen some reviews saying it’s not realistic that they fall for each other via text, and so quickly, but it does happen, and anyway, come on! This is Cinderella, and in the original her and the prince fall in love after just a dance.
Geekerella is such a heartwarming story, it’s not often I read a book again, but this is one I’ll definitely turn to when I need cheering up.
I’m giving Geekerella 5/5 stars and I can’t wait to read more of Ashley Poston’s work. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
First prize is an invitation to the Excelsicon Cosplay Ball and a meet-and-greet with the actor slated to play Federation Prince Carmindor in the reboot.
Elle’s been scraping together tips from her gig at the Magic Pumpkin food truck behind her stepmothers back, and winning this contest could be her ticket out once and for all. Not to mention a fan girls dream come true.
Teen actor Darien Freeman is less than thrilled about this year’s Excelsicon. He used to live for conventions, but know they’re nothing but jaw-aching photo sessions and awkward meet-and-greets.
Playing Federation Prince Carmindor is all he’s ever wanted, but the die-hard Starfield fandom has already dismissed him as just another heartthrob.
As Excelsicon draws near, closet nerd Darien feels more and more like a fake – until he meets a girl who shows him otherwise.
Part romance, part love letter to nerd culture, and all totally adorbs, GEEKERELLA is a fairy tale for anyone who believes in the magic of fandom. ~~
Fairytale meets fandom in this modern day retelling of Cinderella.
I am always here for a new take on a well loved story, and Ashley Poston has delivered a faithful to the original story that also makes for a good tale on its own right.
I have to start by saying look at that cover! When I saw it on the shelf in Waterstones *other bookshops are available* I knew I had to buy it.
I love the modern versions of the well known characters, Elle is a Starfield nerd. Her love of the classic tv show comes from her parents, who originally founded the Starfield convention.
Catherine, the stepmother, and the stepsisters, Chloe and Cal are perfectly spiteful as overwork and under appreciate Elle.
The prince in this version is Darien, a young Hollywood golden boy with insured abs, while the fairy godmother role is filled by Sage, the punk wannabe-fashion-designer. I love Sage!
There’s also a canine sidekick, Franco, a.k.a Frank the tank, any story that includes a very good boy has the makings of a winner for me.
Ashley Poston gives a nod to the coach from the original story with The magic pumpkin, Sage’s vegan food van and the ending is perfect with the ball and even the glass shoe.
Obviously we all know how Cinderella goes but Ashley Poston gets us to the end via a geek-tastic tale of fandoms, fan blogs, cosplay conventions and the movie making world.
The way that Elle and Darien begin to get to know each other via text makes for a sweet romance, each not knowing who the other is – Darien, who Elle doesn’t believe will make a good Carmindor, and Elle, being rebelgunner the blogger who slated Darien – I’ve seen some reviews saying it’s not realistic that they fall for each other via text, and so quickly, but it does happen, and anyway, come on! This is Cinderella, and in the original her and the prince fall in love after just a dance.
Geekerella is such a heartwarming story, it’s not often I read a book again, but this is one I’ll definitely turn to when I need cheering up.
I’m giving Geekerella 5/5 stars and I can’t wait to read more of Ashley Poston’s work. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Dark Sacred Night in Books
Mar 6, 2019
Well-plotted mystery
Renee Ballard is working her usual late night shift when she finds a man going through files at the station. It turns out this stranger is Harry Bosch, a retired detective, who is working on a cold case that has turned personal. Ballard sends him on his way, but begins looking into the files Bosch was flipping through. Once she does, she becomes interested in the case too: fifteen-year-old Daisy, a runaway who was horrifically murdered, her body left on the streets. Ballard begins investigating the case as well, forming an alliance with Bosch and attempting to find out what happened to Daisy nearly a decade ago.
I was a little leery when I learned that Connelly was going to combine Renee's story with my beloved Harry Bosch's (let's just say I love Bosch too much to share him), but this book was really excellent, and I found myself enjoying the two of them together. The narrative switches between Ballard and Bosch, so we still get to hear from each character separately: it's just their stories and lives that start to overlap. This overlap happened pretty naturally, and honestly, their burgeoning partnership/friendship was fun to see. There's a moment in the book when someone asks the pair how they want some files, and Ballard responds "digital" and Bosch, "print," and we get a sense of the fact that--no matter how clever and similar they are--Bosch is truly our old school guy and Ballard is the new blood. So combining forces might not be so bad after all.
I love Harry Bosch. I've loved him for about seven years now, since I discovered this series, and I will always adore him, and I don't like that he's aging, and yeah. I'm attached. Reading his sections was like being back with an old friend. Connelly has Bosch's character and voice so perfected by now. I don't want to reveal too much, but this book ties back to the previous a bit (though it will work on its own), so we see Bosch struggling with some of the choices he made in the last book and figuring out exactly where he stands in his career. I won't lie: it's hard to see him age and even to be fallible.
I really tried to read this one slowly and savor it, as Connelly books (especially with Bosch) just don't come along every day. I love how Connelly seems to know so much (e.g., police procedures, gang wars and rituals, even about surfing), but it never feels like he's over explaining anything. Even better, you always get such a good story. I enjoy how he ties so many of his disparate plot pieces together, or comes back to something you think is totally unrelated. And there's always some sort of recent pop culture worked in (a bit of the #MeToo movement pops up here).
There's a lot going on this book--after all, we get cases from both Bosch and Ballard, plus their shared pursuit of justice for Daisy, but it all works in Connelly's deft hands. He is the master of interlocking stories. Overall, I really enjoyed this one. I was fascinated to see Bosch and Ballard interact, and I was so glad to have another episode featuring my beloved Bosch. If you're a Bosch fan, I think you'll like this one. And if you just enjoy a good, well-plotted mystery, I highly recommend this one as well.
I was a little leery when I learned that Connelly was going to combine Renee's story with my beloved Harry Bosch's (let's just say I love Bosch too much to share him), but this book was really excellent, and I found myself enjoying the two of them together. The narrative switches between Ballard and Bosch, so we still get to hear from each character separately: it's just their stories and lives that start to overlap. This overlap happened pretty naturally, and honestly, their burgeoning partnership/friendship was fun to see. There's a moment in the book when someone asks the pair how they want some files, and Ballard responds "digital" and Bosch, "print," and we get a sense of the fact that--no matter how clever and similar they are--Bosch is truly our old school guy and Ballard is the new blood. So combining forces might not be so bad after all.
I love Harry Bosch. I've loved him for about seven years now, since I discovered this series, and I will always adore him, and I don't like that he's aging, and yeah. I'm attached. Reading his sections was like being back with an old friend. Connelly has Bosch's character and voice so perfected by now. I don't want to reveal too much, but this book ties back to the previous a bit (though it will work on its own), so we see Bosch struggling with some of the choices he made in the last book and figuring out exactly where he stands in his career. I won't lie: it's hard to see him age and even to be fallible.
I really tried to read this one slowly and savor it, as Connelly books (especially with Bosch) just don't come along every day. I love how Connelly seems to know so much (e.g., police procedures, gang wars and rituals, even about surfing), but it never feels like he's over explaining anything. Even better, you always get such a good story. I enjoy how he ties so many of his disparate plot pieces together, or comes back to something you think is totally unrelated. And there's always some sort of recent pop culture worked in (a bit of the #MeToo movement pops up here).
There's a lot going on this book--after all, we get cases from both Bosch and Ballard, plus their shared pursuit of justice for Daisy, but it all works in Connelly's deft hands. He is the master of interlocking stories. Overall, I really enjoyed this one. I was fascinated to see Bosch and Ballard interact, and I was so glad to have another episode featuring my beloved Bosch. If you're a Bosch fan, I think you'll like this one. And if you just enjoy a good, well-plotted mystery, I highly recommend this one as well.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Dracula (English) (1931) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Where it all began...
Contains spoilers, click to show
The year was 1931: Two years after the success of The Jazz Singer and the final introduction of sound movies into the mainstream, sound was still revolutionising the industry. But in 1931, a bit like 3D now, there was still much confusion over to how make films, with directors, producers and actors alike, were still moving over from the suddenly dated silent era, with varying success.
Tod Browning was a man who would unfortunately find little success in the sound era, but not necessarily because he couldn't move with the times, but because his career was derailed a couple of years later by his disturbing horror pic, Freaks.
Dracula was shot THREE times. One, this one, was the conventional sound version that we all know. An other was shot at night and in Spanish for the benefit of that audience, which the studio supposedly preferred. This was quite common at this time, but little known nowadays. And the third was a straight forward silent version for the many theatres still un-equipped to handle sound.
But the styles of the silent era are all over this film. From the long silent reactions shots and the over acting, especially by Bela Lagosi in the titular role. This was also the adaptation of the stage adaptation of Bram Stoker's chiller, and was faithfully adapted from that source, hence the lack of more complex special effects, with bats on strings and fog machines, over more cinematic effects.
The transformation scenes for example, where the Count morphs from a bat to the undead human occur off-screen, rather than some form of cross fade etc. Is this a choice driven by lack of money? Lack of cinematic ambition of a choice to stick to the stage material? To be honest, I have too little knowledge or experience of Tod Browning's work to suggest a reason, but when all's said and done, it did work.
Let's be honest, this is 80 years old and is not the least bit scary and it is hard not to laugh, but in context, I'm sure it worked well at the time and the story is well conveyed. Lagosi's undead performance is hammy by today's standards but he was somewhat likable. He was very deliberate, slow and the silent era has certainly left its scars, as the subtly of sound performing was yet to take hold.
But this is the sort of film were silent melodramatic acting still worked. This is of course a piece Gothic Horror, the home of melodrama if ever there was one. This is surly a product of its time, both as the industry went through one of it's most dramatic changes, which ended so many careers as well a created so many new ones, but it's also, let's not forget, the first direct adaptation of Bram Stoker's book, besides the 1922 German version, Nosferatu, which changes a fair few details to try to get around the copyright, failing to do so mind, resulting in failed bid to have every copy of the film destroyed.
This is the film that ingrained the image of the Dracula that we know today into popular culture. This was were the Universal horror franchise began. For whatever faults it has by today's standards, it did something right.
Tod Browning was a man who would unfortunately find little success in the sound era, but not necessarily because he couldn't move with the times, but because his career was derailed a couple of years later by his disturbing horror pic, Freaks.
Dracula was shot THREE times. One, this one, was the conventional sound version that we all know. An other was shot at night and in Spanish for the benefit of that audience, which the studio supposedly preferred. This was quite common at this time, but little known nowadays. And the third was a straight forward silent version for the many theatres still un-equipped to handle sound.
But the styles of the silent era are all over this film. From the long silent reactions shots and the over acting, especially by Bela Lagosi in the titular role. This was also the adaptation of the stage adaptation of Bram Stoker's chiller, and was faithfully adapted from that source, hence the lack of more complex special effects, with bats on strings and fog machines, over more cinematic effects.
The transformation scenes for example, where the Count morphs from a bat to the undead human occur off-screen, rather than some form of cross fade etc. Is this a choice driven by lack of money? Lack of cinematic ambition of a choice to stick to the stage material? To be honest, I have too little knowledge or experience of Tod Browning's work to suggest a reason, but when all's said and done, it did work.
Let's be honest, this is 80 years old and is not the least bit scary and it is hard not to laugh, but in context, I'm sure it worked well at the time and the story is well conveyed. Lagosi's undead performance is hammy by today's standards but he was somewhat likable. He was very deliberate, slow and the silent era has certainly left its scars, as the subtly of sound performing was yet to take hold.
But this is the sort of film were silent melodramatic acting still worked. This is of course a piece Gothic Horror, the home of melodrama if ever there was one. This is surly a product of its time, both as the industry went through one of it's most dramatic changes, which ended so many careers as well a created so many new ones, but it's also, let's not forget, the first direct adaptation of Bram Stoker's book, besides the 1922 German version, Nosferatu, which changes a fair few details to try to get around the copyright, failing to do so mind, resulting in failed bid to have every copy of the film destroyed.
This is the film that ingrained the image of the Dracula that we know today into popular culture. This was were the Universal horror franchise began. For whatever faults it has by today's standards, it did something right.