Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
The Great Ape-scape
Six years ago, I didn’t think I’d be telling you that a remake of the classic Planet of the Apes and its sequel would go on to be one of the finest double acts since The Two Ronnies, but that’s exactly what has happened.
Now, the final part of this incredible trilogy, War for the Planet of the Apes is out and ready to conclude an incredible half decade of cinema. But is it as good as its predecessors?
Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his band of loyal apes are forced into a deadly war with an army of humans led by a ruthless colonel (Woody Harrelson). After Caesar’s band of apes suffers unimaginable losses, he wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own quest of revenge. As the journey finally brings the two rivals face-to-face, Caesar and the colonel are pitted against each other in an epic battle that will determine the fate of both of their species.
I have to say, I was a little concerned the finished product would be as tongue twisting as its frankly ridiculous title (a problem that has blighted the entire series), but it ends up being a stunning and heart-warming finale to a franchise filled to the brim with memorable moments.
The motion capture used on Andy Serkis to create Caesar has to be seen to be believed. If you thought predecessor Dawn was good, you haven’t seen anything yet. His hair moves with subtle believability and his movements are so fluid, it’s easy to forget you’re watching a film and not a documentary.
But this incredible technology isn’t used solely on our main protagonist. Fan favourite orangutan Maurice returns and newcomer “Bad Ape” captured by Steve Zahn provides the flick with a much-needed eccentric, shining a little light in one of the bleakest feature films of the last half decade.
The human characters, naturally don’t fare so well. Woody Harrelson is his usual charismatic self but feels a little caricature like. His colonel just doesn’t feel particularly believable. Likewise, Amiah Miller’s turn as Nova, whom Maurice adopts as his daughter, seems to be merely used as a plot device, though she does partake in some of the sweeter moments.
As with its predecessors, War is a slow burner with the action interweaved into the plot rather than the other way around. In principle it works well, though the pacing towards the middle of this 140-minute behemoth is a little off.
Nevertheless, the action is filmed beautifully. In fact, the whole film is stunning. Beautiful wooded landscapes and open deserts are juxtaposed with the dark concentration camps used in the latter half. One sequence in particular, behind a gorgeously realised waterfall, is one of the best action scenes of the entire year.
Masquerading as a blockbuster, this is a film with a much deeper message about messing with nature. Brutal and emotionally testing, War for the Planet of the Apes is brave in its choices and all the better for it.
Three films in, it would be easy for director Matt Reeves to rest on his laurels and rely on the positive reaction to its predecessors, but thankfully he has climaxed on a high. It’s not perfect, and not an easy watch by any means, but for a threequel, you can’t really get much better.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/12/war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-review/
Now, the final part of this incredible trilogy, War for the Planet of the Apes is out and ready to conclude an incredible half decade of cinema. But is it as good as its predecessors?
Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his band of loyal apes are forced into a deadly war with an army of humans led by a ruthless colonel (Woody Harrelson). After Caesar’s band of apes suffers unimaginable losses, he wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own quest of revenge. As the journey finally brings the two rivals face-to-face, Caesar and the colonel are pitted against each other in an epic battle that will determine the fate of both of their species.
I have to say, I was a little concerned the finished product would be as tongue twisting as its frankly ridiculous title (a problem that has blighted the entire series), but it ends up being a stunning and heart-warming finale to a franchise filled to the brim with memorable moments.
The motion capture used on Andy Serkis to create Caesar has to be seen to be believed. If you thought predecessor Dawn was good, you haven’t seen anything yet. His hair moves with subtle believability and his movements are so fluid, it’s easy to forget you’re watching a film and not a documentary.
But this incredible technology isn’t used solely on our main protagonist. Fan favourite orangutan Maurice returns and newcomer “Bad Ape” captured by Steve Zahn provides the flick with a much-needed eccentric, shining a little light in one of the bleakest feature films of the last half decade.
The human characters, naturally don’t fare so well. Woody Harrelson is his usual charismatic self but feels a little caricature like. His colonel just doesn’t feel particularly believable. Likewise, Amiah Miller’s turn as Nova, whom Maurice adopts as his daughter, seems to be merely used as a plot device, though she does partake in some of the sweeter moments.
As with its predecessors, War is a slow burner with the action interweaved into the plot rather than the other way around. In principle it works well, though the pacing towards the middle of this 140-minute behemoth is a little off.
Nevertheless, the action is filmed beautifully. In fact, the whole film is stunning. Beautiful wooded landscapes and open deserts are juxtaposed with the dark concentration camps used in the latter half. One sequence in particular, behind a gorgeously realised waterfall, is one of the best action scenes of the entire year.
Masquerading as a blockbuster, this is a film with a much deeper message about messing with nature. Brutal and emotionally testing, War for the Planet of the Apes is brave in its choices and all the better for it.
Three films in, it would be easy for director Matt Reeves to rest on his laurels and rely on the positive reaction to its predecessors, but thankfully he has climaxed on a high. It’s not perfect, and not an easy watch by any means, but for a threequel, you can’t really get much better.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/12/war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-review/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Follow You in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Initially, I really hated the title of this book, it sounds super cheesy and weird, but after finding out it relates to the Twitter Killer plot, I actually thought it was quite cool. The plotline here is that there was Twitter thread called '#BeMyKiller' where you could advertise yourself up to be killed (in a pranky way) but then a few people who responded to this thread were murdered. I thought this was a really unique motivation for the crimes in this and so my hatred for the title dissipated.
This is a fast paced book, with never a dull moment! If you're one of those people who pushes themselves through "just one more chapter", this book is going to stop you from sleeping... There are 130 chapters in this book, with some of them being just a page long!
I liked the plot for this, that they were making a film about the murders, that then turned into more murders. The setting was in the dark and dreary murder place of Meredith, "Fun Central" and because it was an old kids play area, with ball bits and go-kart tracks, it had an eerie feel to it that worked well alongside the gruesome murders. And yes, they were gruesome murders.
Writing was well done. It's not a challenging book to read, there's no amazing descriptive passages or hard-hitting themes, it's just an easy thriller read. One problem I did have with the writing is something so stupid and very specific that it almost seems pointless in saying it, but it got on my nerves enough times that I have to mention it. "So why did you use the #BeMyKiller hashtag?" - how do you read that sentence? I read it as "hashtag Be My Killer hashtag"... yes that's all that's annoyed me, the double use of the hashtag... don't use a # if you're then going to write out hashtag!!!
Our main character in this novel is Hazel, and while she's creating this film to get justice for Meredith's killer, I didn't particularly like her. The blurb makes it sound like Hazel is doing her documentary to get justice for Meredith, but to me, it felt like she was making the film to save her company from going under. She was too deceptive with all the characters about her reasoning behind creating this new film, that her passion to catch the killer felt fake. As for Meredith being a "childhood friend", I'd say that wasn't very realistic, the book makes it feel like they were more acquaintances than anything, and that Hazel just sort of pitied Meredith. It's never good when you don't like the main character, but I was reasonably happy still going along with this novel. Hazel was dislikable but she was tolerable.
I had my suspicions of who the killer might be, which turned out to be wrong, but I think I would have preferred my scenario to play out because the real reveal was pretty dramatic and out there. Although the last 40% of the book was super tense and horror-movie-like it got a little OTT in my opinion.
Overall this is a great thriller if you're looking for a book with non-stop action, but it's not particularly clever and it's very dark, so if you're not into that kinda thing, you won't enjoy this one. It's clear that Parker has a talent for writing and I will definitely look out for more books of his, but this, for me, was a very mediocre thriller novel.
This is a fast paced book, with never a dull moment! If you're one of those people who pushes themselves through "just one more chapter", this book is going to stop you from sleeping... There are 130 chapters in this book, with some of them being just a page long!
I liked the plot for this, that they were making a film about the murders, that then turned into more murders. The setting was in the dark and dreary murder place of Meredith, "Fun Central" and because it was an old kids play area, with ball bits and go-kart tracks, it had an eerie feel to it that worked well alongside the gruesome murders. And yes, they were gruesome murders.
Writing was well done. It's not a challenging book to read, there's no amazing descriptive passages or hard-hitting themes, it's just an easy thriller read. One problem I did have with the writing is something so stupid and very specific that it almost seems pointless in saying it, but it got on my nerves enough times that I have to mention it. "So why did you use the #BeMyKiller hashtag?" - how do you read that sentence? I read it as "hashtag Be My Killer hashtag"... yes that's all that's annoyed me, the double use of the hashtag... don't use a # if you're then going to write out hashtag!!!
Our main character in this novel is Hazel, and while she's creating this film to get justice for Meredith's killer, I didn't particularly like her. The blurb makes it sound like Hazel is doing her documentary to get justice for Meredith, but to me, it felt like she was making the film to save her company from going under. She was too deceptive with all the characters about her reasoning behind creating this new film, that her passion to catch the killer felt fake. As for Meredith being a "childhood friend", I'd say that wasn't very realistic, the book makes it feel like they were more acquaintances than anything, and that Hazel just sort of pitied Meredith. It's never good when you don't like the main character, but I was reasonably happy still going along with this novel. Hazel was dislikable but she was tolerable.
I had my suspicions of who the killer might be, which turned out to be wrong, but I think I would have preferred my scenario to play out because the real reveal was pretty dramatic and out there. Although the last 40% of the book was super tense and horror-movie-like it got a little OTT in my opinion.
Overall this is a great thriller if you're looking for a book with non-stop action, but it's not particularly clever and it's very dark, so if you're not into that kinda thing, you won't enjoy this one. It's clear that Parker has a talent for writing and I will definitely look out for more books of his, but this, for me, was a very mediocre thriller novel.
Goldenarrow74 (10 KP) rated My Scientology Movie (2015) in Movies
Jun 3, 2018
Frustrating but still unashamedly Louis
Now this is a good one:
• Scientology fascinates/horrifies me in equal measure
• I love Louis Theroux’s work over the years, from pornstars to neo-nazis
So, if you add together one of the most unassuming yet tenacious investigative journalists and one of the most misunderstood religions and there’s bound to be sparks flying, right?
Well almost. I recall some comments about a Louis documentary where he kinda lost his usual cool and got wound up/ deterred by his would-be interviewees. Perhaps this could be the one.
Even if this is not the film in question, it’s certainly a little more subdued than his usual material. Because the church told him to sod off.
I guess his view that he wants to offer an unbiased and impartial view on their religion is not one shared by David Whatshisface. This is a shame as I’d loved to have seen LT probe the chief scientist with his softly, softly good cop/nicer cop style of interviewing.
It could well have been a titanic battle of intellect and wills. Almost on a parallel with Westley & Vizzini in the Princess Bride. But now we’ll never know.
Seriously, it’s sort of hobbled the film from the start if we don’t get to speak to anyone from the church, as all we are going to here from therefore are people who don’t know about what really happens or do know but have now come out from the protective umbrella of Scientology and are (quite reasonably) regarded as “embittered”.
Even Louis is being asked a lot to conjure something truly worthwhile with his only evidence coming from potentially biased sources.
It’s only at the hour mark that we even hear of the charitable causes the church supports, from drug abuse to disaster relief. And not long before that we even see a very limited glimpse of the drills, or ‘tech’ that forms part of the Scientologist’s belief system.
What makes me laugh, disappointedly, is that Louis is complaining that the lawyers are accusing him of dwelling on those embittered “squirrels”.... when that’s exactly what he has been doing, out of necessity as he has no other material.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt to LT whenever possible but I think he dropped a bollock there.
I also wonder if the reason we are only given such a brief example of the dianetics system is that the Church’s powerful tentacles reach all the way to the Beeb? I’ve always though that Jeremy Paxman had a steely determination that came from more than just political vigour...
Or maybe it’s because Louis didn’t think it was important enough? Hardly. Maybe because Marty Rathbun got upset and stopped doing it (incidentally he is a crap teacher! Getting visibly disappointed when the student doesn’t immediately see/feel/get what you intend is not the way to help relax and convince someone).
It was slightly disappointing to not see Isaac Hayes who left South Park in a strop because they were planning an episode on Scientology - when he had no problem participating in storylines concerning paedophilia, terrorism, Satan & Saddam Hussein having sex etc..
I jest, of course. And that’s obviously a mistake as it’s abundantly clear that Scientologists have no sense of humour whatsoever. I’m going to be constantly scanning my rear view mirror for a large, clumsily driven Toyota 4x4 now. That won’t stand out at all in the small towns of rural Buckinghamshire will it?
• Scientology fascinates/horrifies me in equal measure
• I love Louis Theroux’s work over the years, from pornstars to neo-nazis
So, if you add together one of the most unassuming yet tenacious investigative journalists and one of the most misunderstood religions and there’s bound to be sparks flying, right?
Well almost. I recall some comments about a Louis documentary where he kinda lost his usual cool and got wound up/ deterred by his would-be interviewees. Perhaps this could be the one.
Even if this is not the film in question, it’s certainly a little more subdued than his usual material. Because the church told him to sod off.
I guess his view that he wants to offer an unbiased and impartial view on their religion is not one shared by David Whatshisface. This is a shame as I’d loved to have seen LT probe the chief scientist with his softly, softly good cop/nicer cop style of interviewing.
It could well have been a titanic battle of intellect and wills. Almost on a parallel with Westley & Vizzini in the Princess Bride. But now we’ll never know.
Seriously, it’s sort of hobbled the film from the start if we don’t get to speak to anyone from the church, as all we are going to here from therefore are people who don’t know about what really happens or do know but have now come out from the protective umbrella of Scientology and are (quite reasonably) regarded as “embittered”.
Even Louis is being asked a lot to conjure something truly worthwhile with his only evidence coming from potentially biased sources.
It’s only at the hour mark that we even hear of the charitable causes the church supports, from drug abuse to disaster relief. And not long before that we even see a very limited glimpse of the drills, or ‘tech’ that forms part of the Scientologist’s belief system.
What makes me laugh, disappointedly, is that Louis is complaining that the lawyers are accusing him of dwelling on those embittered “squirrels”.... when that’s exactly what he has been doing, out of necessity as he has no other material.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt to LT whenever possible but I think he dropped a bollock there.
I also wonder if the reason we are only given such a brief example of the dianetics system is that the Church’s powerful tentacles reach all the way to the Beeb? I’ve always though that Jeremy Paxman had a steely determination that came from more than just political vigour...
Or maybe it’s because Louis didn’t think it was important enough? Hardly. Maybe because Marty Rathbun got upset and stopped doing it (incidentally he is a crap teacher! Getting visibly disappointed when the student doesn’t immediately see/feel/get what you intend is not the way to help relax and convince someone).
It was slightly disappointing to not see Isaac Hayes who left South Park in a strop because they were planning an episode on Scientology - when he had no problem participating in storylines concerning paedophilia, terrorism, Satan & Saddam Hussein having sex etc..
I jest, of course. And that’s obviously a mistake as it’s abundantly clear that Scientologists have no sense of humour whatsoever. I’m going to be constantly scanning my rear view mirror for a large, clumsily driven Toyota 4x4 now. That won’t stand out at all in the small towns of rural Buckinghamshire will it?
In The Dark World, Zak Bagans talks about his ghostly encounters, as the lead investigator for the documentary series Ghost Adventures! As one of the more seasoned and experienced professionals in the field, Zak has had some pretty crazy experiences! They cover the entire spectrum of ghost hunting phenomena, from seeing full body apparitions, to having his butt pinched by a spirit, LOL!
Zak begins by talking about the experiences he’s had with spirits prior to the series, and explaining why his own nature led him to this danger’s-edge career path. It’s not a biography however, and in some places is more like a manual for future ghost hunters.
There is an element of progression in the book, in that it starts by concentrating on innocent spirits, which he admits make up the majority; followed by confused spirits, who are sometimes unaware that they have died. This is succeeded by chapters on angry spirits, followed by downright evil spirits, which he refers to as demons.
The book starts with less dramatic phenomena such as words being heard through a white noise generator, emotional transference, and unexplained orbs of light on camera. But this is quickly followed up by tales of pebbles and shards being levitated vertically and flung horizontally by unseen hands, and physical scratch marks on Zak’s back! Zak also comes dangerously close to being possessed!
When Zak carries out an investigation, he starts by researching the history of the buildings and accompanying remaining personalities linked to the buildings. This makes for better story-telling, both on the screen, and certainly in his book.
I am a follower of the show when it’s available in the UK, and have always been intrigued by the equipment they use. I was expecting the book to be heavily edited, and, as such lacking in this kind of detail. However I was very pleasantly surprised - Zak even goes as far as explaining which pieces of equipment are better, and why. To an extent, the book can serve as a manual for would be ghost hunters.
Zak explains the difference between residual and intelligent hauntings, and chronicles instances where the lines between the two are blurred. He also documents moments when he’s had simultaneous significant readings on several devices, and argues that that in itself provides excellent evidence of the paranormal.
The nerd that I am looked forward to the section on the scientific theories for these paranormal experiences - and I wasn’t disappointed! Several theories were put forward and they form one of the most accessible guides to scientific theories that I’ve ever read! Zak discusses how each theory fits particular experiences of his, and compares and contrasts them for different phenomena.
The book is rounded off with Zak relating his ambitions for the field of paranormal investigation, where he puts a case forward for a central repository of data. In this section, we also hear from other prominent figures in the field, with their hopes for the field, including a striking passage from Marie D. Jones.
The book has high entertainment value, but a mere book, even one written as seriously as this, won’t make a believer out of a sceptic. Its content provides essential background for a would-be ghost hunter however. A recommended read for the open-minded and curious.
Zak begins by talking about the experiences he’s had with spirits prior to the series, and explaining why his own nature led him to this danger’s-edge career path. It’s not a biography however, and in some places is more like a manual for future ghost hunters.
There is an element of progression in the book, in that it starts by concentrating on innocent spirits, which he admits make up the majority; followed by confused spirits, who are sometimes unaware that they have died. This is succeeded by chapters on angry spirits, followed by downright evil spirits, which he refers to as demons.
The book starts with less dramatic phenomena such as words being heard through a white noise generator, emotional transference, and unexplained orbs of light on camera. But this is quickly followed up by tales of pebbles and shards being levitated vertically and flung horizontally by unseen hands, and physical scratch marks on Zak’s back! Zak also comes dangerously close to being possessed!
When Zak carries out an investigation, he starts by researching the history of the buildings and accompanying remaining personalities linked to the buildings. This makes for better story-telling, both on the screen, and certainly in his book.
I am a follower of the show when it’s available in the UK, and have always been intrigued by the equipment they use. I was expecting the book to be heavily edited, and, as such lacking in this kind of detail. However I was very pleasantly surprised - Zak even goes as far as explaining which pieces of equipment are better, and why. To an extent, the book can serve as a manual for would be ghost hunters.
Zak explains the difference between residual and intelligent hauntings, and chronicles instances where the lines between the two are blurred. He also documents moments when he’s had simultaneous significant readings on several devices, and argues that that in itself provides excellent evidence of the paranormal.
The nerd that I am looked forward to the section on the scientific theories for these paranormal experiences - and I wasn’t disappointed! Several theories were put forward and they form one of the most accessible guides to scientific theories that I’ve ever read! Zak discusses how each theory fits particular experiences of his, and compares and contrasts them for different phenomena.
The book is rounded off with Zak relating his ambitions for the field of paranormal investigation, where he puts a case forward for a central repository of data. In this section, we also hear from other prominent figures in the field, with their hopes for the field, including a striking passage from Marie D. Jones.
The book has high entertainment value, but a mere book, even one written as seriously as this, won’t make a believer out of a sceptic. Its content provides essential background for a would-be ghost hunter however. A recommended read for the open-minded and curious.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Borat (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
One of the funniest and most shockingly outrageous comedies in the history of film has arrived, and it is poised not only to make Sacha Baron Cohen a major star, but also ignite controversy. The film is Borat and it follows Cohen’s Kazakhstan news man, Borat, as he leaves his homeland to film a documentary in New York.
Naturally one would expect a fish out of water story, but fans are treated to much more than this as Borat and his backwards thoughts and practices and given form all over the U.S. often to the shock of those around him as well as howls of laughter from the audience.
You see Borat is a man with a few issues. He is anti-Semitic, a misogynist, ignorant and uncultured, and not ashamed of his actions which grow bolder and more outrageous as the film progresses.
The opening segments in his native land like the entire film is filled with one rapid fire joke after another as Borat introduces us to his family and key people in his town such as the town rapist and his sister the prostitute. As funny as the setup and the settings are, it is the clever comments that Cohen slips in that allows Borat to make some biting social and political commentaries.
Once in America, he travels from New York to Los Angeles making several stops along the way with side splitting results as Borat encounters events ranging from a rodeo, polite society, pop culture, a religious revival and much more.
The amazing thing about the film is that it never grows old and over the roughly 84 minutes of the films running time, there are plenty of jokes and a absence of slow spots which are often so common in comedies today.
Cohen is great at portraying Borat as a likeable guy who does not know any better which makes his comments and actions so easy to take. Cohen who is himself Jewish is able to get away with making jokes about his faith as he is doing it through the persona of someone who is ignorant to many realities in the world.
In a way the film allows us to laugh at ourselves as well as Borat is supposed to be a foreigner who does not know better, but is wiser in some ways due to his ignorance of topics. There is a scene where Borat buys a car is a true look at consumerism in the West as he spells out in graphic detail what he wants in a car and what he expects it to do for his love life.
Not only is the scene outrageous but it underscores the message of sex appeal and desirability that is prevalent in car ads aimed at men. Instead of hinting at it, Borat lifts the lid on the subject and takes it on with no punches pulled.
The film is tricky to review as one of the greatest joys of the film is the sense of discovery and not knowing where or what Borat will say or do next. Suffice it to say, that the film is a comedic masterpiece that will have you shocked and laughing harder than any film in recent memory.
Naturally one would expect a fish out of water story, but fans are treated to much more than this as Borat and his backwards thoughts and practices and given form all over the U.S. often to the shock of those around him as well as howls of laughter from the audience.
You see Borat is a man with a few issues. He is anti-Semitic, a misogynist, ignorant and uncultured, and not ashamed of his actions which grow bolder and more outrageous as the film progresses.
The opening segments in his native land like the entire film is filled with one rapid fire joke after another as Borat introduces us to his family and key people in his town such as the town rapist and his sister the prostitute. As funny as the setup and the settings are, it is the clever comments that Cohen slips in that allows Borat to make some biting social and political commentaries.
Once in America, he travels from New York to Los Angeles making several stops along the way with side splitting results as Borat encounters events ranging from a rodeo, polite society, pop culture, a religious revival and much more.
The amazing thing about the film is that it never grows old and over the roughly 84 minutes of the films running time, there are plenty of jokes and a absence of slow spots which are often so common in comedies today.
Cohen is great at portraying Borat as a likeable guy who does not know any better which makes his comments and actions so easy to take. Cohen who is himself Jewish is able to get away with making jokes about his faith as he is doing it through the persona of someone who is ignorant to many realities in the world.
In a way the film allows us to laugh at ourselves as well as Borat is supposed to be a foreigner who does not know better, but is wiser in some ways due to his ignorance of topics. There is a scene where Borat buys a car is a true look at consumerism in the West as he spells out in graphic detail what he wants in a car and what he expects it to do for his love life.
Not only is the scene outrageous but it underscores the message of sex appeal and desirability that is prevalent in car ads aimed at men. Instead of hinting at it, Borat lifts the lid on the subject and takes it on with no punches pulled.
The film is tricky to review as one of the greatest joys of the film is the sense of discovery and not knowing where or what Borat will say or do next. Suffice it to say, that the film is a comedic masterpiece that will have you shocked and laughing harder than any film in recent memory.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated What We Left Behind: Looking Back at Deep Space Nine (2018) in Movies
Jul 23, 2019
Where would we be without DS9?
Maybe the best Trek of all time?
Sisko, Odo, Kira, O'Brien, Dax, Quark, Bashir and the rest of the massive cast brought Star Trek to life as never before in this vastly different "station"ary style of Trek.
At the time, syndication was where it was at for reruns and additional revenue for a TV program. DS9 bucked the trend of wrapping up everything within one episode and began a TV serial which pretty much ran almost the entire run, much to the dismay of studio executives. Nowadays, shows like The Walking Dead, Lost, or Game of Thrones do this every week, but in the mid 90s this was not common.
Sandwiched in between The Next Generation and Voyager, DS9 did not get a lot of respect during its initial run at all. Also at that time, Trek TNG movies were in full swing so the show had to compete with that as well. Television stations would often preempt the show, skip a week or run the show in the early morning hours which made it even harder for its audience to keep track of the action.
DS9 certainly got a 2nd life with the current popularity of "binge watching" on your favorite streaming service. Having the ability to watch multi-part episodes or entire seasons within a few weeks brought back to life the en genius writing, acting and production quality of the series.
For this documentary, former showrunner Ira Steven Behr took several years worth of cast, crew and fan interviews, clips, behind the scenes footage and compiled a wonderful interesting film for any Trek fan. Many cast members major and minor as well as producers, writers and tech workers told tales of working on the show and how they very much enjoyed their time.
Throughout the many iterations of Trek, original creator Gene Roddenberry felt the show should entertain as well as provide social commentary on the issues of the time and DS9 was no exception. Throughout the show's 7 year run they dealt with issues such as racism, homelessness, same sex relationships and even genetic engineering.
One of the most fun subplots of the film was gathering the show's original writers in a room to formulate the first episode for the fictitious "Season 8" which will never actually happen (although I wish it would). The ideas, plot points and arcs they went through and came up with were extremely interesting, keep with the high level of writing the show originally produced, but also through us a few curveballs with some fun surprises.
Through the cast interviews we got to hear how the crew got along, some of their favorite and least favorite episodes and even the friendships they have maintained with one another.
The DVD set I received also had included a vast assortment of additional footage featuring even more nuggets and stories of what made the show great.
Overall, this film was one of the best documentaries I have ever seen about one of my favorite television programs in my lifetime. I might have to start binge watching the show again very soon.
Did I mention my name appears in the end credits?!? 😊
Sisko, Odo, Kira, O'Brien, Dax, Quark, Bashir and the rest of the massive cast brought Star Trek to life as never before in this vastly different "station"ary style of Trek.
At the time, syndication was where it was at for reruns and additional revenue for a TV program. DS9 bucked the trend of wrapping up everything within one episode and began a TV serial which pretty much ran almost the entire run, much to the dismay of studio executives. Nowadays, shows like The Walking Dead, Lost, or Game of Thrones do this every week, but in the mid 90s this was not common.
Sandwiched in between The Next Generation and Voyager, DS9 did not get a lot of respect during its initial run at all. Also at that time, Trek TNG movies were in full swing so the show had to compete with that as well. Television stations would often preempt the show, skip a week or run the show in the early morning hours which made it even harder for its audience to keep track of the action.
DS9 certainly got a 2nd life with the current popularity of "binge watching" on your favorite streaming service. Having the ability to watch multi-part episodes or entire seasons within a few weeks brought back to life the en genius writing, acting and production quality of the series.
For this documentary, former showrunner Ira Steven Behr took several years worth of cast, crew and fan interviews, clips, behind the scenes footage and compiled a wonderful interesting film for any Trek fan. Many cast members major and minor as well as producers, writers and tech workers told tales of working on the show and how they very much enjoyed their time.
Throughout the many iterations of Trek, original creator Gene Roddenberry felt the show should entertain as well as provide social commentary on the issues of the time and DS9 was no exception. Throughout the show's 7 year run they dealt with issues such as racism, homelessness, same sex relationships and even genetic engineering.
One of the most fun subplots of the film was gathering the show's original writers in a room to formulate the first episode for the fictitious "Season 8" which will never actually happen (although I wish it would). The ideas, plot points and arcs they went through and came up with were extremely interesting, keep with the high level of writing the show originally produced, but also through us a few curveballs with some fun surprises.
Through the cast interviews we got to hear how the crew got along, some of their favorite and least favorite episodes and even the friendships they have maintained with one another.
The DVD set I received also had included a vast assortment of additional footage featuring even more nuggets and stories of what made the show great.
Overall, this film was one of the best documentaries I have ever seen about one of my favorite television programs in my lifetime. I might have to start binge watching the show again very soon.
Did I mention my name appears in the end credits?!? 😊
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jan 21, 2019
Good movie with 2 GREAT performances
Writer/Director Adam McKay was known for years as the writing partner/director of Will Ferrell, having written and directed such comedy gems as ANCHORMAN, TALLADEGA NIGHTS and STEP BROTHERS and then, in 2015, he stepped out of Ferrell's shadow - and the comedy world - and delivered the multi-Oscar nominated film THE BIG SHORT, a fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at the financial crisis of the mid-2000's.
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Hell House LLC (2015) in Movies
Jan 20, 2020
I'd heard very little about Hell House LLC before watching it and hadn't even seen the trailer either. But, it had been highly recommended by a few people and had been sitting on my Amazon Prime watch-list for some time anyway, so I decided to give it a shot. It's a found footage horror, which has been done to death now, so it's easy to go into another one feeling cynical and apprehensive. However, there is still the occasional hidden gem out there waiting to be found and, for me, Hell House LLC turned out to be one of them.
The plot surrounds a Halloween house tour in an old abandoned hotel in a small American town. On opening night, as dozens of thrill-seekers descend on the house to enjoy the various mannequins and lighting effects that have been setup to try and scare them, there is an incident down in the basement. Panic ensues as everyone tries to locate the exits and there are a number of mysterious deaths, along with numerous injuries. We see a YouTube video that somebody recorded during their tour, but they didn't quite make it to the basement to capture what went on, so all we see is them making a hasty exit. Five years on and the hotel is now boarded up, while the whole tragedy remains unexplained. Now though, the sole survivor of the crew responsible for putting on the event has approached a documentary crew with a bunch of video tapes that were recorded by the team in the run-up to opening night, so hopefully the truth will finally be revealed.
We begin with the team driving to the hotel for the first time, before going inside to check it all out. They've put on Halloween house tours before, but this one is a bit of a challenge due to the derelict nature of the hotel. First they need to get power to the place, in order to setup safety cameras in every room and corridor, strobe lighting etc. Then they start setting up the various rooms, working out themes and hiring a small group of actors to dress up and scare people during the tour. Early on in the movie, these scenes are interspersed with interviews from reporters, photographers and historians who recount some of the troubled history of the hotel and give us a bit more detail as to what happened during and after the events of the tours opening night.
The crew of five are all staying in the hotel as they work towards the big day, all the while documenting their progress and the various challenges they encounter. The place is seriously creepy anyway and the movie takes it's time in establishing the characters and making sure you're familiar with everything they've installed and the general layout of the hotel before mysterious things start happening, usually at night while everyone is trying to sleep. At first, things are basic enough that it's easy for them to accuse someone of trying to prank the others, but they soon start to increase in intensity and creepiness. Despite all common sense, preparations still continue for the big night which, as we already know, turns out to be a big mistake.
I really liked Hell House LLC. I'm still not actually sure what happened down in the basement, or afterwards for that matter, but the build up to it really did work well for me and there were some very effective and genuinely unsettling moments. And I do love feeling unsettled by a movie!
The plot surrounds a Halloween house tour in an old abandoned hotel in a small American town. On opening night, as dozens of thrill-seekers descend on the house to enjoy the various mannequins and lighting effects that have been setup to try and scare them, there is an incident down in the basement. Panic ensues as everyone tries to locate the exits and there are a number of mysterious deaths, along with numerous injuries. We see a YouTube video that somebody recorded during their tour, but they didn't quite make it to the basement to capture what went on, so all we see is them making a hasty exit. Five years on and the hotel is now boarded up, while the whole tragedy remains unexplained. Now though, the sole survivor of the crew responsible for putting on the event has approached a documentary crew with a bunch of video tapes that were recorded by the team in the run-up to opening night, so hopefully the truth will finally be revealed.
We begin with the team driving to the hotel for the first time, before going inside to check it all out. They've put on Halloween house tours before, but this one is a bit of a challenge due to the derelict nature of the hotel. First they need to get power to the place, in order to setup safety cameras in every room and corridor, strobe lighting etc. Then they start setting up the various rooms, working out themes and hiring a small group of actors to dress up and scare people during the tour. Early on in the movie, these scenes are interspersed with interviews from reporters, photographers and historians who recount some of the troubled history of the hotel and give us a bit more detail as to what happened during and after the events of the tours opening night.
The crew of five are all staying in the hotel as they work towards the big day, all the while documenting their progress and the various challenges they encounter. The place is seriously creepy anyway and the movie takes it's time in establishing the characters and making sure you're familiar with everything they've installed and the general layout of the hotel before mysterious things start happening, usually at night while everyone is trying to sleep. At first, things are basic enough that it's easy for them to accuse someone of trying to prank the others, but they soon start to increase in intensity and creepiness. Despite all common sense, preparations still continue for the big night which, as we already know, turns out to be a big mistake.
I really liked Hell House LLC. I'm still not actually sure what happened down in the basement, or afterwards for that matter, but the build up to it really did work well for me and there were some very effective and genuinely unsettling moments. And I do love feeling unsettled by a movie!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Sun Is Also A Star (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
At some point I may get bored of YA adaptations that throw two young people together with a bit of adversity. I'm not saying that this wasn't good but there are other typed of YA books out there that could be done.
After years living in the US, Natasha and her family are a day away from being deported back to Jamaica. She's determined to find a way to have them stay so instead of packing she's off to make one last attempt to stay in the city she loves.
Daniel is about to have the biggest interview of his life, his whole future is resting on it, but he throws all thoughts of it aside when he sees Natasha looking up in a crowd of people ignoring the world. She's a beautiful anomaly in his life and he needs to find her no matter the consequences.
Circumstances bring the two together and Daniel manages to convince her that even an hour with him could change their lives forever.
When I write it down like that the story doesn't sound quite so... magical? Man sees attractive young woman and attempts to stalk her... yeah, slightly creepy, but thankfully the film doesn't feel like that.
Nicola Yoon is two for two with her novels (the first being Everything, Everything) and we've got another lovely film in The Sun Is Also A Star. Of course it's yet another book I haven't read, if only there were a few more hours of leisure time in our lives.
Thinking back on this I find the timeline for the film a little confusing, which is strange considering you know that the majority happens over the space of two days. Perhaps it's because it's a little far fetched, perhaps it's also because they're constantly going from place to place and it seems like more than just a day's worth of activity.
Natasha is played by Yara Shahidi, the only thing I know her from recently is Black-ish, which I love. I had reservations about this casting, actors going from long-running shows into films doesn't always end well, partly because of the different acting style needed and partly from my side and being very familiar with their character. I shouldn't have worried, she does a great job with this role, and it's nice to see a character that doesn't have a typical backstory.
The same can be said for Daniel, played by Riverdale's Charles Melton. Watching his struggle with the path of his life is really interesting and I liked the small flashback to where everything was decided. If we ignore the creepiness of the couple's meeting then Daniel is a nice down to earth character and Melton strikes a nice balance between his home life and his actual life around people he knows.
Together they make a captivating couple on screen, and I like how they're each other's support even though they don't know that much about each other. They have great chemistry and that definitely boosted the enjoyment of the film.
I hardly made any notes when watching this, those that I did were about the nice use of voiceovers (that sounded very much like nature documentary), some good songs at the beginning, and then the intriguing and nice way they ended it. It's an enjoyable watch but I think it's come at the wrong end of the YA adaptation trend, everything is very similar despite having some individual charm.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-sun-is-also-star-movie-review.html
After years living in the US, Natasha and her family are a day away from being deported back to Jamaica. She's determined to find a way to have them stay so instead of packing she's off to make one last attempt to stay in the city she loves.
Daniel is about to have the biggest interview of his life, his whole future is resting on it, but he throws all thoughts of it aside when he sees Natasha looking up in a crowd of people ignoring the world. She's a beautiful anomaly in his life and he needs to find her no matter the consequences.
Circumstances bring the two together and Daniel manages to convince her that even an hour with him could change their lives forever.
When I write it down like that the story doesn't sound quite so... magical? Man sees attractive young woman and attempts to stalk her... yeah, slightly creepy, but thankfully the film doesn't feel like that.
Nicola Yoon is two for two with her novels (the first being Everything, Everything) and we've got another lovely film in The Sun Is Also A Star. Of course it's yet another book I haven't read, if only there were a few more hours of leisure time in our lives.
Thinking back on this I find the timeline for the film a little confusing, which is strange considering you know that the majority happens over the space of two days. Perhaps it's because it's a little far fetched, perhaps it's also because they're constantly going from place to place and it seems like more than just a day's worth of activity.
Natasha is played by Yara Shahidi, the only thing I know her from recently is Black-ish, which I love. I had reservations about this casting, actors going from long-running shows into films doesn't always end well, partly because of the different acting style needed and partly from my side and being very familiar with their character. I shouldn't have worried, she does a great job with this role, and it's nice to see a character that doesn't have a typical backstory.
The same can be said for Daniel, played by Riverdale's Charles Melton. Watching his struggle with the path of his life is really interesting and I liked the small flashback to where everything was decided. If we ignore the creepiness of the couple's meeting then Daniel is a nice down to earth character and Melton strikes a nice balance between his home life and his actual life around people he knows.
Together they make a captivating couple on screen, and I like how they're each other's support even though they don't know that much about each other. They have great chemistry and that definitely boosted the enjoyment of the film.
I hardly made any notes when watching this, those that I did were about the nice use of voiceovers (that sounded very much like nature documentary), some good songs at the beginning, and then the intriguing and nice way they ended it. It's an enjoyable watch but I think it's come at the wrong end of the YA adaptation trend, everything is very similar despite having some individual charm.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-sun-is-also-star-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A film worth getting into your life.
Reviewing documentaries is always a bit tricky, since it is often difficult to separate the quality of the film making from your emotional attachment to the subject material. In my case, my early life was saturated with Beatlemania. Although I was only 2 year’s old in 1963 at the start of it all, I had three older siblings who ramped up the excitement so much that it permeated my young mind. I still remember being vehemently “Sssshhed” since I was making too much noise during the live and ground-breaking “All you need is Love” telecast!
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).