Search
Search results
Kim Pook (101 KP) rated Awake (2021) in Movies
Jun 1, 2022
This movie stars Gina Rodriguez aka Jane the virgin as Jill, a young mum who also seems to be a prescription drug dealer!?! Anyway, one day after work Jill gets into a car crash with her kids in the car, at the same time as a power cut. When she goes to the hospital, patients who were in a coma start waking up and staff are busy wondering what's happening. It is soon evident that the world is unable to sleep except for Jill's daughter matilda. They need to find a way to be able to sleep before everyone turns crazy and matilda is the key.
This film really confused me, I thought the whole being awake thing had happened during the power cut, but the way people were behaving it was like they'd been that way for a while. Jill mentions she had only been awake for 4 days, so was everyone effected at different times? How long has it been going on? Nothing made sense and I lost interest quickly. I watched to the end to see if all these answers became clear, but they didn't. That's an hour and thirty five minutes of my life I never getting back.
This film really confused me, I thought the whole being awake thing had happened during the power cut, but the way people were behaving it was like they'd been that way for a while. Jill mentions she had only been awake for 4 days, so was everyone effected at different times? How long has it been going on? Nothing made sense and I lost interest quickly. I watched to the end to see if all these answers became clear, but they didn't. That's an hour and thirty five minutes of my life I never getting back.
Quantum Reaction
Book
Life-altering tech is on the horizon, and someone wants it stopped—permanently. Can a murder...
Science Fiction Mystery
Live Football Scores - Soccer Live Score
Sports and Entertainment
App
Follow all the international FOOTBALL live! Receive live goal alerts and consult the football scores...
Ross (3284 KP) rated After Life in TV
Apr 11, 2019
Gervais tries to break the mould again
Once again we see Ricky Gervais try to break the mould for a sit-com, this time by covering some pretty deep and heavy topics. While the humour is still there, it comes through fairly infrequently and is a little off kilter, when compared to the drama of the series.
Gervais plays Tony, a journalist on a local free paper who has recently lost his wife to cancer. Tony has simply given up on life and, while he cannot bring himself to end it, he seems to have decided to just do whatever he wants, no matter the consequences. He is rude to people in the street, makes his colleagues' working days miserable, and while he visits his dad in a care home regularly he clearly hates it and is just doing it out of duty.
Most of the comedy comes through in Gervais doing what he does best - being rude and nasty and way over the top in insulting people. The humour here is more for the shock value (calling a 6 year old a tubby little c**t for example) rather than a more considered layer of humour. As Tony has decided he can just do whatever he wants and hang the consequences, he takes a stand against stupid rules (the scene where he takes his nephew for tea in a café was brilliant).
I preferred the drama side of the series - him trying drugs, meeting new people and gradually softening over the series were some very touching moments and very well written. However when weighed against the comedy it just seems incongruous. I think Gervais needs to think about whether he wants to write a drama (and tone down the comedy a little more) or a comedy (and try less to push the boundaries).
Tony's epiphany was a little rushed/hard to spot. It seems that after 5 episodes of not caring about anything, the 6th starts off with him suddenly being a changed man out of nowhere. There were small moments where he seemed to soften but there was no sudden realisation big enough to justify the change of heart in the last episode.
This was a pretty hard hitting, emotional series, but I think it lost a little of the impact by having Gervais in it and trying to shoe-horn his sense of humour into it.
Gervais plays Tony, a journalist on a local free paper who has recently lost his wife to cancer. Tony has simply given up on life and, while he cannot bring himself to end it, he seems to have decided to just do whatever he wants, no matter the consequences. He is rude to people in the street, makes his colleagues' working days miserable, and while he visits his dad in a care home regularly he clearly hates it and is just doing it out of duty.
Most of the comedy comes through in Gervais doing what he does best - being rude and nasty and way over the top in insulting people. The humour here is more for the shock value (calling a 6 year old a tubby little c**t for example) rather than a more considered layer of humour. As Tony has decided he can just do whatever he wants and hang the consequences, he takes a stand against stupid rules (the scene where he takes his nephew for tea in a café was brilliant).
I preferred the drama side of the series - him trying drugs, meeting new people and gradually softening over the series were some very touching moments and very well written. However when weighed against the comedy it just seems incongruous. I think Gervais needs to think about whether he wants to write a drama (and tone down the comedy a little more) or a comedy (and try less to push the boundaries).
Tony's epiphany was a little rushed/hard to spot. It seems that after 5 episodes of not caring about anything, the 6th starts off with him suddenly being a changed man out of nowhere. There were small moments where he seemed to soften but there was no sudden realisation big enough to justify the change of heart in the last episode.
This was a pretty hard hitting, emotional series, but I think it lost a little of the impact by having Gervais in it and trying to shoe-horn his sense of humour into it.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated 3 From Hell (2019) in Movies
Oct 18, 2019 (Updated Oct 18, 2019)
Very disappointing
It seems 3 From Hell was doomed before it began for several reasons.
First, why did Zombie wait so long between sequels? The time between House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects was only 2 years. Zombie was a hot director at the time. Maybe he felt his career as a prominent horror director would continue to blossom after he was handed the reigns of rebooting the Halloween franchise.
Second, talk about painting yourself into a corner thematically having your three main characters go up against a police roadblock at the end of the last film getting sprayed with an onslaught of law enforcement ammunition. These are not immortal characters here, so explaining that circumstance would be difficult one indeed.
Third, and probably most importantly for fans, one of your leads has become deathly ill, lost a lot of weight, and probably cannot handle the strain of a large acting role at this time. Sid Haig dies only a few days after this film's release and his role was reduced to basically a cameo within the first few minutes of the movie disappointing fans of his unique personality as Captain Spaulding to minimal screen time. This eventuality made Rob Zombie have to do extensive rewrites to reinvent his third 3 From Hell baddie, and it was definitely a step down.
Explaining the plot of the film would almost mirror exactly that of the previous film. Somehow, the 3 survive their being riddled with 20 bullets each and get incarcerated for their convictions of the years of murder , torture and other bad deeds they have inflicted on their victims. Otis breaks free and escapes one day on his prison work detail and goes after the family and friends of the warden. A plan is put in place to execute the release of his beautiful, but deadly sister, Baby, by smuggling her out in a prison guard uniform.
After she returns to the warden's home full of kidnap victims (carbon copy of the motel scenes from Rejects) the two baddies along with their badass stepbrother decide to make their way to Mexico to evade capture and indulge in the good life of excess.
After they arrive, they have fun with the locals while secretly are betrayed to a band of south of the border hooligans looking to get revenge themselves on the 3 who had murdered a relative (again the same as the sheriff in Rejects).
I really couldn't believe the plot points being so very similar to Rejects. Zombie clearly ran out of good ideas and felt like the audience would just be happy to see more random bloody violence perpetrated by characters they knew and loved. Not true for me as I became bored quite quickly hoping for something interesting to happen which never really did.
The look of the film was also quite different. It seems Zombie's popularity is not what it once was and his budget this time must have been much smaller. The cinematography was weak and not very creative and the visual effects were just north of Sharknado level I thought with poor quality with the bullet wounds and stabbing injuring looking amateur.
Overall, very disappointed for a long wait with a poor 3rd film payoff. This is one of those times they should've quit with two movies and quit while they were ahead.
First, why did Zombie wait so long between sequels? The time between House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects was only 2 years. Zombie was a hot director at the time. Maybe he felt his career as a prominent horror director would continue to blossom after he was handed the reigns of rebooting the Halloween franchise.
Second, talk about painting yourself into a corner thematically having your three main characters go up against a police roadblock at the end of the last film getting sprayed with an onslaught of law enforcement ammunition. These are not immortal characters here, so explaining that circumstance would be difficult one indeed.
Third, and probably most importantly for fans, one of your leads has become deathly ill, lost a lot of weight, and probably cannot handle the strain of a large acting role at this time. Sid Haig dies only a few days after this film's release and his role was reduced to basically a cameo within the first few minutes of the movie disappointing fans of his unique personality as Captain Spaulding to minimal screen time. This eventuality made Rob Zombie have to do extensive rewrites to reinvent his third 3 From Hell baddie, and it was definitely a step down.
Explaining the plot of the film would almost mirror exactly that of the previous film. Somehow, the 3 survive their being riddled with 20 bullets each and get incarcerated for their convictions of the years of murder , torture and other bad deeds they have inflicted on their victims. Otis breaks free and escapes one day on his prison work detail and goes after the family and friends of the warden. A plan is put in place to execute the release of his beautiful, but deadly sister, Baby, by smuggling her out in a prison guard uniform.
After she returns to the warden's home full of kidnap victims (carbon copy of the motel scenes from Rejects) the two baddies along with their badass stepbrother decide to make their way to Mexico to evade capture and indulge in the good life of excess.
After they arrive, they have fun with the locals while secretly are betrayed to a band of south of the border hooligans looking to get revenge themselves on the 3 who had murdered a relative (again the same as the sheriff in Rejects).
I really couldn't believe the plot points being so very similar to Rejects. Zombie clearly ran out of good ideas and felt like the audience would just be happy to see more random bloody violence perpetrated by characters they knew and loved. Not true for me as I became bored quite quickly hoping for something interesting to happen which never really did.
The look of the film was also quite different. It seems Zombie's popularity is not what it once was and his budget this time must have been much smaller. The cinematography was weak and not very creative and the visual effects were just north of Sharknado level I thought with poor quality with the bullet wounds and stabbing injuring looking amateur.
Overall, very disappointed for a long wait with a poor 3rd film payoff. This is one of those times they should've quit with two movies and quit while they were ahead.
AccuWeather - Superior Accuracy
Weather and Travel
App
Stay connected to the latest in weather forecasting with AccuWeather – Weather for Life. This...
fuboTV: Stream Live Sports
Sports and Entertainment
App
Stream the most live sports for the least money with fuboTV. •• Watch FREE for 7 days. Then...
Fitly Nutrition and Exercise
Health & Fitness, Productivity and Stickers
App
With Fitly, you can always have the body you desire, reach the diet lists which is special to your...
Little Nanny Parent - GPS Tracker
Lifestyle and Navigation
App
Little Nanny – a high precision child tracker (GPS) and playground guard. Almost like a real nanny...
Lee (2222 KP) rated The One and Only Ivan (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Better than most CGI talking animal Disney movies
Originally scheduled for a cinematic release, but now arriving on Disney+ instead, The One and Only Ivan is the latest in a long line of stories involving CGI animals who can talk, banding together to outsmart us humans in order to escape captivity. Only this one is actually based on a true story.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.