Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated S. Darko: A Donnie Darko Tale (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Samantha Darko, or Sam as she goes by, just wants to feel like a normal person. Back where she's from, Virginia, she feels like everyone knows everything about her yet that she's invisible at the same time. She'd change places with somebody if she could. Somehow start all over. Nothing has been the same for her since her brother, Donnie, died seven years ago and she is consumed with the same outlandish visions Donnie had. She decides to go on a road trip with her friend, Corey, to California in hopes of working for Corey's dad. Their car breaks down along the way and they wind up in a small town called Conejo Springs. This is where the world will end in four days, seventeen hours, twenty six minutes, and thirty one seconds.
s. Darko wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but that still isn't saying much. I love Donnie Darko as it seems to be a film that gets better with each viewing. When news that a sequel to the film was being made, the question that plagued me and every other person who was a fan of the first film was, "Why?" Did the original really leave much room for a sequel? Not in my eyes. The sequel does little to add to the story established in the first film. It pretty much treads the same ground. The world is going to end again. An element that is different in the film is that more than one person is having the visions this time around. While it makes sense that Sam is having these visions, it doesn't really add up why these other people are having them as well. The movie does a lot of back tracking. A lot of things are explained only to rewind and have it play out differently, which makes full use of the time travel element of the film but kind of leaves the viewer wondering if the film was nothing more than a waste of time once the ending rolls around. The film just seems to recycle most of the ingredients of the first film (time travel, Frank the Bunny...even though he's not Frank this time around, religion playing a roll in the film, black holes, etc) and is unable to establish itself as a decent sequel, let alone its own film.
The scene in Donnie Darko that has "Head Over Heels" by Tears For Fears playing in the background while we see Donnie arrive at school and the "Mad World" scene are really the first scenes that come to mind when I think of the original film. The soundtrack played a pivotal role in the film. In s. Darko, there isn't really a scene like that and the soundtrack is forgettable, which really only hurt the film in the long run.
s. Darko walks a thin line between paying homage to the original film and complete bastardization. Its plot tries to string the viewer along this intelligent and thought provoking story, but executes doing so in clumsy fashion. It resembles a circus seal waiting for its reward after playing that ensemble with its nose on the horns currently residing in front of it. It'll really only be accessible to people who were fans of the first film, which is ironic since the film will probably just wind up irritating those fans. If you can ignore the first film entirely and have no expectations for this, then you may find yourself with a direct to video release that is...pretty much just that.
s. Darko wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but that still isn't saying much. I love Donnie Darko as it seems to be a film that gets better with each viewing. When news that a sequel to the film was being made, the question that plagued me and every other person who was a fan of the first film was, "Why?" Did the original really leave much room for a sequel? Not in my eyes. The sequel does little to add to the story established in the first film. It pretty much treads the same ground. The world is going to end again. An element that is different in the film is that more than one person is having the visions this time around. While it makes sense that Sam is having these visions, it doesn't really add up why these other people are having them as well. The movie does a lot of back tracking. A lot of things are explained only to rewind and have it play out differently, which makes full use of the time travel element of the film but kind of leaves the viewer wondering if the film was nothing more than a waste of time once the ending rolls around. The film just seems to recycle most of the ingredients of the first film (time travel, Frank the Bunny...even though he's not Frank this time around, religion playing a roll in the film, black holes, etc) and is unable to establish itself as a decent sequel, let alone its own film.
The scene in Donnie Darko that has "Head Over Heels" by Tears For Fears playing in the background while we see Donnie arrive at school and the "Mad World" scene are really the first scenes that come to mind when I think of the original film. The soundtrack played a pivotal role in the film. In s. Darko, there isn't really a scene like that and the soundtrack is forgettable, which really only hurt the film in the long run.
s. Darko walks a thin line between paying homage to the original film and complete bastardization. Its plot tries to string the viewer along this intelligent and thought provoking story, but executes doing so in clumsy fashion. It resembles a circus seal waiting for its reward after playing that ensemble with its nose on the horns currently residing in front of it. It'll really only be accessible to people who were fans of the first film, which is ironic since the film will probably just wind up irritating those fans. If you can ignore the first film entirely and have no expectations for this, then you may find yourself with a direct to video release that is...pretty much just that.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Per My Last Email in Tabletop Games
Nov 5, 2019
Do you ever wish you could reply to your boss’s emails using the language that first pops into your head? Many people do, so don’t feel bad. What if there was a game that would put you into this scenario and have your boss choosing the worst reply from the group? Enter Per My Last Email – on Kickstarter until November 26, 2019.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. -T
Per My Last Email is a party card game for groups of four or more players with more fun to be had with more than four players. To setup, shuffle the stack of Boss email cards (the red ones) and place them on the table. Next take the gargantuan stack of Reply and HR cards (the blue and green ones respectively) and shuffle them together. Good luck because there are a TON of these included. Deal each player 10 Reply cards, determine the starting Boss player and you are ready to play!
A game of Per My Last Email will play almost identically to Apples to Apples or Cards Against Humanity – or whichever flavor of this style of game you may prefer. Here’s how it runs down.
The Boss draws a red card and reads the email prompt to the other players. The other players then choose a Reply or HR card from their hand as their response to the Boss’s email. The Boss player then collects the cards, shuffles them, and reads each one aloud to the group. From there the Boss will choose their favorite response and the player who played that card will receive the Boss email card as a reward. Play continues in this fashion until one player holds four Boss cards – or whatever limit you set prior to playing. That player is the winner of Per My Last Email!
Components. To reiterate, we were provided a prototype copy of this game and we do not know if or how these components may change over the course of a successful Kickstarter campaign. This game is a box with about a zillion cards. The cards are good quality, and I appreciate that for a game like this there is no linen finish. Linen finishes can sometimes hinder printing on the cards. Not the case here. I also enjoyed seeing each card laid out like an actual company email. This attention to detail is refreshing. Where some designers and publishers may just throw some text on the cards, we get a real-feel email card and it’s lovely. I have no qualms with the components here except I wish I was better at shuffling 8,000 cards.
If you or your game group are fans of the party card games based on Apples to Apples, you might want to give this one a go. The Boss email cards and the hilarious Reply cards (especially the NSFW ones) will bring out tons of chuckles and discussion about how the players only WISH they could send emails like this to their bosses! Per My Last Email is definitely a step up from both Apples to Apples and Cards Against Humanity. Check out the game’s Kickstarter campaign that is active until November 26, 2019.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. As this is a preview copy of the game, I do not know if the final rules or components will be similar or different to what we were provided. -T
Per My Last Email is a party card game for groups of four or more players with more fun to be had with more than four players. To setup, shuffle the stack of Boss email cards (the red ones) and place them on the table. Next take the gargantuan stack of Reply and HR cards (the blue and green ones respectively) and shuffle them together. Good luck because there are a TON of these included. Deal each player 10 Reply cards, determine the starting Boss player and you are ready to play!
A game of Per My Last Email will play almost identically to Apples to Apples or Cards Against Humanity – or whichever flavor of this style of game you may prefer. Here’s how it runs down.
The Boss draws a red card and reads the email prompt to the other players. The other players then choose a Reply or HR card from their hand as their response to the Boss’s email. The Boss player then collects the cards, shuffles them, and reads each one aloud to the group. From there the Boss will choose their favorite response and the player who played that card will receive the Boss email card as a reward. Play continues in this fashion until one player holds four Boss cards – or whatever limit you set prior to playing. That player is the winner of Per My Last Email!
Components. To reiterate, we were provided a prototype copy of this game and we do not know if or how these components may change over the course of a successful Kickstarter campaign. This game is a box with about a zillion cards. The cards are good quality, and I appreciate that for a game like this there is no linen finish. Linen finishes can sometimes hinder printing on the cards. Not the case here. I also enjoyed seeing each card laid out like an actual company email. This attention to detail is refreshing. Where some designers and publishers may just throw some text on the cards, we get a real-feel email card and it’s lovely. I have no qualms with the components here except I wish I was better at shuffling 8,000 cards.
If you or your game group are fans of the party card games based on Apples to Apples, you might want to give this one a go. The Boss email cards and the hilarious Reply cards (especially the NSFW ones) will bring out tons of chuckles and discussion about how the players only WISH they could send emails like this to their bosses! Per My Last Email is definitely a step up from both Apples to Apples and Cards Against Humanity. Check out the game’s Kickstarter campaign that is active until November 26, 2019.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Call Me By Your Name in Books
Jan 18, 2020
I loved this book and then I hated it and then I loved it again. Let me back up. I love everything about the way this book was written. I think that if I were going to write a book in a similar fashion, it would look a lot like this. The way Elio thinks and sometimes overthinks is very similar to my own. I think that it's very obvious that this book is written about a European boy in the way that he talks and thinks about love and sex and the grand scheme of life. At one point in the novel, Oliver asks him if he's always been this wise and Elio shrugs and says he knows nothing and I think that is so far from the truth. You would never find an American 17-year old that talks and thinks about love and sex and life in the way that Elio does - at least I don't think - and I loved that. I read a lot of American and English authors and novels and it's nice to be transported to a different place - the very serene cottage that Elio's family lives in - and live vicariously through him and Oliver.
The parts that I didn't like in this novel have nothing to do with the characters or the dialogue or anything pertaining to the story really. I think the trouble of writing a novel from this specific perspective is that Elio's thoughts can get away from him, especially at good parts where you just want the story to keep progressing. Overall though, they always find a way of meaning something and bringing you back in.
Finishing this novel left me with these mixed emotions of euphoria and heartbreak. I love the way that Elio talks about Oliver and frames him to be the great love of his life, essentially, and Oliver does the same thing years after their last encounter together. I find the way that Elio thinks about him and loves him to be magical and all-encompassing and I think if you've ever experienced that overwhelming feeling of love and desire of another person in every way, you can just put yourself in Elio's shoes and you're transported back to that feeling and it's really magical. I think that's what books should do for you.
I was also surprised at how much I enjoyed the time jumps that happen at the end of the novel. Sometimes I think that they are unnecessary and just annoying because you want to think about the characters having lived this certain way and when it's given to you, it can sometimes be disappointing but I didn't feel that with this novel. I appreciated them, I liked where they went, and I liked that there was and probably always will be this unspoken deep, unresolvable love between Elio and Oliver.
This novel is written almost as if Elio is dying and someone asked him about the love of his life and he remembers it so vividly and with so much love that he's lying back and telling this story and just reminiscing and falling in love with Oliver all over again - at least that's how I read it. I loved this novel. The last paragraph just really pulls it out of you and I just. It's great. I'm not sure what else to say other than it's great.
The parts that I didn't like in this novel have nothing to do with the characters or the dialogue or anything pertaining to the story really. I think the trouble of writing a novel from this specific perspective is that Elio's thoughts can get away from him, especially at good parts where you just want the story to keep progressing. Overall though, they always find a way of meaning something and bringing you back in.
Finishing this novel left me with these mixed emotions of euphoria and heartbreak. I love the way that Elio talks about Oliver and frames him to be the great love of his life, essentially, and Oliver does the same thing years after their last encounter together. I find the way that Elio thinks about him and loves him to be magical and all-encompassing and I think if you've ever experienced that overwhelming feeling of love and desire of another person in every way, you can just put yourself in Elio's shoes and you're transported back to that feeling and it's really magical. I think that's what books should do for you.
I was also surprised at how much I enjoyed the time jumps that happen at the end of the novel. Sometimes I think that they are unnecessary and just annoying because you want to think about the characters having lived this certain way and when it's given to you, it can sometimes be disappointing but I didn't feel that with this novel. I appreciated them, I liked where they went, and I liked that there was and probably always will be this unspoken deep, unresolvable love between Elio and Oliver.
This novel is written almost as if Elio is dying and someone asked him about the love of his life and he remembers it so vividly and with so much love that he's lying back and telling this story and just reminiscing and falling in love with Oliver all over again - at least that's how I read it. I loved this novel. The last paragraph just really pulls it out of you and I just. It's great. I'm not sure what else to say other than it's great.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Lady Vanishes (1938) in Movies
Aug 5, 2019
A Film That Never Quite Steadies Itself
When a woman disappears after a train ride, iris Henderson (Margaret Lockwood), who was on the same train, is trying to prove that the woman was even there to begin with and get to the bottom of what’s going on. I always root for the classics (50’s or earlier) because of my immense respect for film and also wanting to recommend some hidden gems. Unfortunately this one fell a bit short for me and here’s why…
Acting: 10
I thought the performances were quite on par for the course. Lockwood delivers her lines with a sincerity and truth that almost manages to keep me engaged. I wish her character was more interesting, but that’s not her fault. She had a job and she did that job in stellar fashion along with some of the other main actors/actresses that came along for this ride.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 2
These characters were about as interesting as canned chicken noodle soup, not the kind you get from PF Chang’s. No, these are Great Value characters all day and they bored me to tears. I wanted someone, ANYONE, to make me care and I just couldn’t bring myself to latch on to any of them. You know what I always say and it bears repeating: When you have weak characters, you’re not even giving your story a fighting chance. Good characters are like the tires on a fine car. The car means nothing if it doesn’t have a means in which to be transported.
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 6
I never really felt like much was happening. There are flashes, sure, but I just couldn’t get a grasp on the stakes for some reason. I waited, believe me I did, but I left the viewing wanting much more than what I got.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 10
I know this is going to seem ass-backwards from everything I’ve written up to this point, but I scored this category so high because of the attempt at an original story. No, it wasn’t perfect. Yes, the execution could have been much better. However, I do feel like this is a film that needs to be respected within its time.
Pace: 5
Things never really steadied for me as I found myself continuously looking at the clock. While it picks up slightly towards its conclusion, it never really gains the steam that I was looking for. For me, there was just too much of too much, meaning it kept veering off into different directions before properly getting to the end of one road.
Plot: 5
Resolution: 10
As I mentioned, things definitely pick up steam at the end until you get to a thrilling conclusion. When it was all said and done, I found myself asking, “Why the hell couldn’t the rest of the movie be like this?” It was almost like there was a different director for the last fifteen minutes of the movie. Definitely ties a nice bow on things.
Overall: 68
As of this review, The Lady Vanishes has a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes with an 88% Audience Score. I plan to watch this movie again because it missed me the first time. Maybe the second time around I’ll pick up on the magic I seem to be missing.
Acting: 10
I thought the performances were quite on par for the course. Lockwood delivers her lines with a sincerity and truth that almost manages to keep me engaged. I wish her character was more interesting, but that’s not her fault. She had a job and she did that job in stellar fashion along with some of the other main actors/actresses that came along for this ride.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 2
These characters were about as interesting as canned chicken noodle soup, not the kind you get from PF Chang’s. No, these are Great Value characters all day and they bored me to tears. I wanted someone, ANYONE, to make me care and I just couldn’t bring myself to latch on to any of them. You know what I always say and it bears repeating: When you have weak characters, you’re not even giving your story a fighting chance. Good characters are like the tires on a fine car. The car means nothing if it doesn’t have a means in which to be transported.
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 6
I never really felt like much was happening. There are flashes, sure, but I just couldn’t get a grasp on the stakes for some reason. I waited, believe me I did, but I left the viewing wanting much more than what I got.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 10
I know this is going to seem ass-backwards from everything I’ve written up to this point, but I scored this category so high because of the attempt at an original story. No, it wasn’t perfect. Yes, the execution could have been much better. However, I do feel like this is a film that needs to be respected within its time.
Pace: 5
Things never really steadied for me as I found myself continuously looking at the clock. While it picks up slightly towards its conclusion, it never really gains the steam that I was looking for. For me, there was just too much of too much, meaning it kept veering off into different directions before properly getting to the end of one road.
Plot: 5
Resolution: 10
As I mentioned, things definitely pick up steam at the end until you get to a thrilling conclusion. When it was all said and done, I found myself asking, “Why the hell couldn’t the rest of the movie be like this?” It was almost like there was a different director for the last fifteen minutes of the movie. Definitely ties a nice bow on things.
Overall: 68
As of this review, The Lady Vanishes has a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes with an 88% Audience Score. I plan to watch this movie again because it missed me the first time. Maybe the second time around I’ll pick up on the magic I seem to be missing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
As an Alice in Wonderland enthusiast, I was more than thrilled when Disney announced they were making Alice Through the Looking Glass, since the first film was visually stunning I went into watching the sequel with the same expectation that it would be rich in color and visuals. Visually it did not disappoint, with lavish costumes, and whimsical set design from beginning to end; the film was entertaining to watch. With returning characters such as Alice (Mia Wasikowska), The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), and The White Queen (Anne Hathaway); the main story focuses on Alice trying to save the Hatter. With the citizens of Wonderland concerned for the Hatter’s wellbeing they rely on Alice to try to save the Hatter before it is too late, however Alice must race against Time (Sacha Baron Cohen) to try to learn what has happened to the Hatters family. Alice learns you can’t change the past but you can learn from it for the future; but will this knowledge help her save the Hatter or keep her stuck in the past?
Alice Through the Looking Glass mainly focuses on the friendship of Alice and the Hatter but also gives background history into the past of the Hatter, The Red Queen, and The White Queen. I found this really insightful and made it easier to get invested into the films plot points. I also found this film much more fast paced then the first film, literally about 10 minutes into the film Alice is jumping through the looking glass into Wonderland and right into the action. The newest addition to this film however is Time; who at first is given the main antagonist slot of the film, but as the story progresses that is not entirely the case. The film really shows good and evil are subjective in a sense, all while giving a good old fashion Disney happy ending.
Tim Burton’s Alice Through the Looking Glass keeps the accomplished directors personal style while keeping the characters of Lewis Carroll’s novel noticeable. However, I will warn you, if you were wanting to see this and hoping it was just like the novel.
It’s not. It’s actually the furthest from the actual book Through the Looking-Glass. The only reason it should probably have this title is due to Alice walking through the looking glass to get to Wonderland, but story wise it has nothing in common story wise. Burton used heavy creative license in the film, and even added Time as a leading role and main plot point that’s not even in Carroll’s novel. While the film is visually stunning and the beloved characters help the audience get invested, the overall plot is somewhat lacking the whimsy that is known in Carroll’s story. While the first film tells the story of Carroll’s novel, the sequel is definitely a story of Burton’s creation. So overall I would say the film is decent; if you enjoyed the first one you should enjoy this one. However, for those who loved the novel and were hoping for an accurate adaptation, this might not be for you. For me personally as a lover of all things “Alice in Wonderland”; I enjoyed it visually, and the portrayal of characters was great, but I felt the story was lacking.
Alice Through the Looking Glass mainly focuses on the friendship of Alice and the Hatter but also gives background history into the past of the Hatter, The Red Queen, and The White Queen. I found this really insightful and made it easier to get invested into the films plot points. I also found this film much more fast paced then the first film, literally about 10 minutes into the film Alice is jumping through the looking glass into Wonderland and right into the action. The newest addition to this film however is Time; who at first is given the main antagonist slot of the film, but as the story progresses that is not entirely the case. The film really shows good and evil are subjective in a sense, all while giving a good old fashion Disney happy ending.
Tim Burton’s Alice Through the Looking Glass keeps the accomplished directors personal style while keeping the characters of Lewis Carroll’s novel noticeable. However, I will warn you, if you were wanting to see this and hoping it was just like the novel.
It’s not. It’s actually the furthest from the actual book Through the Looking-Glass. The only reason it should probably have this title is due to Alice walking through the looking glass to get to Wonderland, but story wise it has nothing in common story wise. Burton used heavy creative license in the film, and even added Time as a leading role and main plot point that’s not even in Carroll’s novel. While the film is visually stunning and the beloved characters help the audience get invested, the overall plot is somewhat lacking the whimsy that is known in Carroll’s story. While the first film tells the story of Carroll’s novel, the sequel is definitely a story of Burton’s creation. So overall I would say the film is decent; if you enjoyed the first one you should enjoy this one. However, for those who loved the novel and were hoping for an accurate adaptation, this might not be for you. For me personally as a lover of all things “Alice in Wonderland”; I enjoyed it visually, and the portrayal of characters was great, but I felt the story was lacking.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Gods Of Egypt (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Gods of Egypt is a visually stunning fantasy film that teeters on the edge of being campy.
The trailers for this film set high expectations, promising a story of the mythical, god-like beings that come from Egyptian lore. But they also raised questions: would the story keep in tune with common mythos, or branch out into a whole new realm?
With Game of Thrones star Nikolaj Coster-Waldau taking the lead, along with 300’s Gerard Butler, the film starts off in a beautiful, ancient Egypt, ruled over by Osiris and his Queen. Horus, Osiris’s son (Coster- Waldau), is ready to assume the crown, but Set (Butler), brother to Osiris, has other plans. He feels scorned for having to live in the desert, and decides it is his time to rule all of Egypt. He murders Osiris, but leaves Horus alive, taking his eyes instead of his life.
Enter a thief, who wants to rescue his beloved from the clutches of Set’s architect (Rufus Sewell). The love of his life somehow talks him into rallying a dejected Horus to fight Set.
All the gods of Egypt are represented in some form or fashion, even if in minor capacity.
The gods have the ability to morph into larger, more powerful beings. They are nigh invincible, but still age, and die. They pray to Ra, god of the sun and grandfather to Horus.
This two-hour movie is filled to the brim with star-power, and superb acting. The special effects are a sight to behold, and they instill a sense of wonderment. The adventure is grand indeed, and will certainly leave you entertained.
That said, the script is sub-par. There are moments where emotional lines could be delivered, but aren’t. This is not from lack of trying on the part of the actors; the writers simply failed to find the proper words. In these moments, there was laughter from the audience at my viewing — during scenes clearly not meant for humor. This is the precarious knife-edge the movie walks between greatness and campy.
I’ve read several articles about how moviegoers are upset at the very Caucasian-looking cast. I shared this sentiment, to a certain degree. It seemed odd that a movie about a specific time and place in history made little effort to be ethnically accurate.
In the end, I let it go. The movie’s lore turned out to be so far from a real-world tie in that it no longer mattered. It was clear this was some sort of alternate universe; one of the major plot holes is a lack of connection to planet Earth.
If you can divorce yourself from some of these elements, you can really enjoy the film for what it is.
My screener companion said he didn’t care for the graphics, because they were obviously fake. I experienced this movie using animated films as my frame of reference, and that made it easier to watch. It is also clearly a High Fantasy film.
In summary: great acting is the glue that holds this film together. Without that talent, it wouldn’t stand up. It is, however, worth seeing if you love fantasy films. You will be entertained, for sure.
3.5 out 5 stars
The trailers for this film set high expectations, promising a story of the mythical, god-like beings that come from Egyptian lore. But they also raised questions: would the story keep in tune with common mythos, or branch out into a whole new realm?
With Game of Thrones star Nikolaj Coster-Waldau taking the lead, along with 300’s Gerard Butler, the film starts off in a beautiful, ancient Egypt, ruled over by Osiris and his Queen. Horus, Osiris’s son (Coster- Waldau), is ready to assume the crown, but Set (Butler), brother to Osiris, has other plans. He feels scorned for having to live in the desert, and decides it is his time to rule all of Egypt. He murders Osiris, but leaves Horus alive, taking his eyes instead of his life.
Enter a thief, who wants to rescue his beloved from the clutches of Set’s architect (Rufus Sewell). The love of his life somehow talks him into rallying a dejected Horus to fight Set.
All the gods of Egypt are represented in some form or fashion, even if in minor capacity.
The gods have the ability to morph into larger, more powerful beings. They are nigh invincible, but still age, and die. They pray to Ra, god of the sun and grandfather to Horus.
This two-hour movie is filled to the brim with star-power, and superb acting. The special effects are a sight to behold, and they instill a sense of wonderment. The adventure is grand indeed, and will certainly leave you entertained.
That said, the script is sub-par. There are moments where emotional lines could be delivered, but aren’t. This is not from lack of trying on the part of the actors; the writers simply failed to find the proper words. In these moments, there was laughter from the audience at my viewing — during scenes clearly not meant for humor. This is the precarious knife-edge the movie walks between greatness and campy.
I’ve read several articles about how moviegoers are upset at the very Caucasian-looking cast. I shared this sentiment, to a certain degree. It seemed odd that a movie about a specific time and place in history made little effort to be ethnically accurate.
In the end, I let it go. The movie’s lore turned out to be so far from a real-world tie in that it no longer mattered. It was clear this was some sort of alternate universe; one of the major plot holes is a lack of connection to planet Earth.
If you can divorce yourself from some of these elements, you can really enjoy the film for what it is.
My screener companion said he didn’t care for the graphics, because they were obviously fake. I experienced this movie using animated films as my frame of reference, and that made it easier to watch. It is also clearly a High Fantasy film.
In summary: great acting is the glue that holds this film together. Without that talent, it wouldn’t stand up. It is, however, worth seeing if you love fantasy films. You will be entertained, for sure.
3.5 out 5 stars
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Trumbo (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
What is it that makes, not a great, but even a good biopic? It is certainly no enviable task, trying to condense decades of a person’s life into a mere two hours. Choosing what to keep and what to leave, stringing events together so that they feel as though they are one complete narrative opposed to a series of vignettes. And then there are the inevitable purists who will write off the entire product based on a single detail either left out or composited due to running time or budgetary restrictions. Over the years, I have found myself wrestling with my opinion of Braveheart. Do I enjoy it for its epic qualities, or do I cast it aside as the wretched historical inaccuracies fly in the face of what is one of the most important times in a country’s past?
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated A Good Day To Die Hard (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
To me, the original Die Hard (1988) was the birth of the modern action movie that we now take for granted. We have a seeming normal everyman in Bruce Willis, playing a likable but tough as nails NYPD cop John McClane, who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Yes, Story if his life.) The street smart hero uses whatever resources he could muster to become a thorn in the side of an intelligent and sophisticated villain, while dropping a few comedy one-liners along the way. This being the 5th installment of the Die Hard series the formula seems to be working, only not as well as past films in the series.
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does well. The soon to be 58 Willis is still as likeable as ever as John McClane. The film does a good job of making fun of his age just enough to make you feel that he is old, but not TOO old. The improbable action is as big as ever which leads to mass destruction in typical John McClane fashion. This action helps the 97min runtime feel fast paced and fun. Also Jai Courtney (Jack Reacher) plays John’s son CIA agent Jack McClane and actually plays strong against Willis. The whole father-son dynamic is interesting and gives some new depth to this familiar character. This dynamic leads up to a redeeming moment for John McClane that makes you wonder if this is Willis’s swan song in the series and if the reins are being passed to Courtney?
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does not do well. Perhaps the most notable are the lack luster one-liner jokes that always seem to stand out in the previous films. They exist, however they are not really that funny. Also the same joke was recycled over and over that by the end I do not recall laughing about anything in the final 40 mins of the film. Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the villain in this film is vanilla. So plain that I do not care to even look up his name. Just know that if you are a fan of the film he is nowhere near the Brilliance of the characters Hans Gruber or even Simon Gruber in previous films. And for this series that is a big problem. We know John McClane is a bad ass, but what is the point of all his destruction if he is not using it to stomp someone who is equally menacing.
In the end I can say that this film is a guilty pleasure that I enjoyed. It is far from a good movie but fans of the series and anyone just looking to watch a run of the mill action flick will be entertained. Leading up to this film I watch the previous four films and I have to say that this film is better than Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Live Free and Die Hard but behind the Die Hard With A Vengeance and far behind the original Die Hard. If you have never seen a Die Hard film, do yourself a favor and use the price of admission to rent the original.
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does well. The soon to be 58 Willis is still as likeable as ever as John McClane. The film does a good job of making fun of his age just enough to make you feel that he is old, but not TOO old. The improbable action is as big as ever which leads to mass destruction in typical John McClane fashion. This action helps the 97min runtime feel fast paced and fun. Also Jai Courtney (Jack Reacher) plays John’s son CIA agent Jack McClane and actually plays strong against Willis. The whole father-son dynamic is interesting and gives some new depth to this familiar character. This dynamic leads up to a redeeming moment for John McClane that makes you wonder if this is Willis’s swan song in the series and if the reins are being passed to Courtney?
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does not do well. Perhaps the most notable are the lack luster one-liner jokes that always seem to stand out in the previous films. They exist, however they are not really that funny. Also the same joke was recycled over and over that by the end I do not recall laughing about anything in the final 40 mins of the film. Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the villain in this film is vanilla. So plain that I do not care to even look up his name. Just know that if you are a fan of the film he is nowhere near the Brilliance of the characters Hans Gruber or even Simon Gruber in previous films. And for this series that is a big problem. We know John McClane is a bad ass, but what is the point of all his destruction if he is not using it to stomp someone who is equally menacing.
In the end I can say that this film is a guilty pleasure that I enjoyed. It is far from a good movie but fans of the series and anyone just looking to watch a run of the mill action flick will be entertained. Leading up to this film I watch the previous four films and I have to say that this film is better than Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Live Free and Die Hard but behind the Die Hard With A Vengeance and far behind the original Die Hard. If you have never seen a Die Hard film, do yourself a favor and use the price of admission to rent the original.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Chronicle (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Walking into the theatre to see Chronicle I was pretty excited. I had not heard much about this movie, in fact I’ll be honest here… I heard a small amount of info about two months ago and then it dropped off my radar before a trailer appeared last Sunday.
The trailer was enough for me to believe that this movie was going to be different than some of the other superhero/people with powers movies out there. I must say I was not disappointed.
That being said, the movie was not quite what I expected. This film was not presented as a high-quality cinematic experience the way movies such as “X-men: First Class” were. Instead, think “Paranormal Activity” meets Heroe and you get a better understanding of the film. Most of the movie is viewed through a video camera that the main character is toting around to “chronicle” his life. The film also does a creative job of being able to portray events when it doesn’t make sense for the video camera to be around. Overall, I think they did a good job in the presentation. But now to the meat and potatoes.
Set in Seattle, Chronicle follows Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan, True Blood and In Treatment), a troubled teen who is having trouble fitting in with his fellow seniors at school. He has to deal with his abusive father and ill mother all the while traversing day to day life as the social reject. His cousin Matt (Alex Russell, Wasted on the Young) is his only real friend, and Andrew has his suspicions about that relationship as well.
At a high school party Matt and Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan, Hard Ball and Friday Night Lights [TV]), the class president hopeful, come across a mysterious hole in the ground. Matt and Steve search Andrew out and convince him to go with them to record what could possibly be down in the hole.
They venture down in and find something almost indescribable. A meteor of some type had crashed in through the earth, only you don’t really know if this thing is a meteor or some type of living organism. Something goes wrong, and we are left wondering about the boys’ safety until we next see the boys a few weeks later and discover that they’ve been changed by their contact with this “meteor”. They now have telekinetic powers. Though weak at first, it is clear that the boys begin developing the power as they would a muscle and their relationship as friends begins to strengthen as well. We begin to focus on Andrew even more and see how he comes to terms with these new found abilities, and the affect it has on him as he continues to live his troubled life. As things begin to escalate, he starts to lose his grip on reality to a disastrous end.
While not a blockbuster movie in any sense of the word, this film definitely has a story to tell. It brings us back to a seemingly recurring theme over the past decade or so: don’t bully or ostracize people, or they could snap. While I did not feel that the events leading to the climatic high point in the movie were portrayed in such a fashion that you would believe Andrew would have reacted the way he did, it was still a very entertaining film.
The trailer was enough for me to believe that this movie was going to be different than some of the other superhero/people with powers movies out there. I must say I was not disappointed.
That being said, the movie was not quite what I expected. This film was not presented as a high-quality cinematic experience the way movies such as “X-men: First Class” were. Instead, think “Paranormal Activity” meets Heroe and you get a better understanding of the film. Most of the movie is viewed through a video camera that the main character is toting around to “chronicle” his life. The film also does a creative job of being able to portray events when it doesn’t make sense for the video camera to be around. Overall, I think they did a good job in the presentation. But now to the meat and potatoes.
Set in Seattle, Chronicle follows Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan, True Blood and In Treatment), a troubled teen who is having trouble fitting in with his fellow seniors at school. He has to deal with his abusive father and ill mother all the while traversing day to day life as the social reject. His cousin Matt (Alex Russell, Wasted on the Young) is his only real friend, and Andrew has his suspicions about that relationship as well.
At a high school party Matt and Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan, Hard Ball and Friday Night Lights [TV]), the class president hopeful, come across a mysterious hole in the ground. Matt and Steve search Andrew out and convince him to go with them to record what could possibly be down in the hole.
They venture down in and find something almost indescribable. A meteor of some type had crashed in through the earth, only you don’t really know if this thing is a meteor or some type of living organism. Something goes wrong, and we are left wondering about the boys’ safety until we next see the boys a few weeks later and discover that they’ve been changed by their contact with this “meteor”. They now have telekinetic powers. Though weak at first, it is clear that the boys begin developing the power as they would a muscle and their relationship as friends begins to strengthen as well. We begin to focus on Andrew even more and see how he comes to terms with these new found abilities, and the affect it has on him as he continues to live his troubled life. As things begin to escalate, he starts to lose his grip on reality to a disastrous end.
While not a blockbuster movie in any sense of the word, this film definitely has a story to tell. It brings us back to a seemingly recurring theme over the past decade or so: don’t bully or ostracize people, or they could snap. While I did not feel that the events leading to the climatic high point in the movie were portrayed in such a fashion that you would believe Andrew would have reacted the way he did, it was still a very entertaining film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Final Destination 5 (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Director Steven Quale brings us the latest bloody installment of the “Final Destination” series 5 in 3D.
In this installment Sam Lawton (Nicholas D’Agosto) and his girlfriend Molly Harper (Emma Bell), work in the same office with their friends and boss Dennis (David Koechner).
Sam has been offered an apprenticeship in Paris as a cook and though this has been Sam’s dream Molly feels that she is holding him back. This becomes awkward for the both of them as this happens right before they leave for a conference with their co-workers.
As with past films in the series, Sam has a vision of a very gruesome accident that kills him and his friends in a very grisly manner, this time through a bridge accident.
Sam awakens from his vision and manages to get several of his friends and his boss to safety before the accident happens. Despite being unable to explain how he saw the accident coming to his friends and the local authorities, Sam and his friends are thankful to be alive.
As fans of the series know, death does not like to be cheated, and one by one the survivors die in a series of freak accidents. In a race against time, they must follow the advice of a creepy medical examiner (Tony Todd), who advises them they must find someone to replace them in order to escape their fate.
What follows is a gory thrill ride that should delight fans of the series old and new.
Final Destination 5 is the perfect ending to a long and drawn out series of events. In Final Destination 4 is almost seemed as though the series would just keep going and we would see the same old story plot.
After the first two movies the sequels to those became dull and boring for me as how often can you play out the same formula? This time out, the deaths are over the top and cringe worthy and have breathed a new life into the franchise. Sure the acting is bad, but I would ask if anyone has ever gone to see any of the movies in the series for the acting?
For me it is all about the blood and guts with the outrageous death scenes and in this regard “Final Destination 5” delivers.
The studio made a very wise decision to film the entire movie in 3D rather than converting it after the fact as the opening title sequence alone is amazing with tons of glass and other objects floating in front of you in a menacing fashion.
The movie in a whole with its cheesy lines and absolutely horrible acting is made up for with the 3D effects. You will find yourself laughing often as the film plays up the humor and shock value instead of the frights. Be sure to pay close attention to references of past “Final Destination” movies as this chapter has a nice way to connect itself to the previous films. If you go to the theater with low expectations which most of you probably will you will sure to be blown away by this latest outing as this movie will provide you with great entertainment and is a must see in 3D!
In this installment Sam Lawton (Nicholas D’Agosto) and his girlfriend Molly Harper (Emma Bell), work in the same office with their friends and boss Dennis (David Koechner).
Sam has been offered an apprenticeship in Paris as a cook and though this has been Sam’s dream Molly feels that she is holding him back. This becomes awkward for the both of them as this happens right before they leave for a conference with their co-workers.
As with past films in the series, Sam has a vision of a very gruesome accident that kills him and his friends in a very grisly manner, this time through a bridge accident.
Sam awakens from his vision and manages to get several of his friends and his boss to safety before the accident happens. Despite being unable to explain how he saw the accident coming to his friends and the local authorities, Sam and his friends are thankful to be alive.
As fans of the series know, death does not like to be cheated, and one by one the survivors die in a series of freak accidents. In a race against time, they must follow the advice of a creepy medical examiner (Tony Todd), who advises them they must find someone to replace them in order to escape their fate.
What follows is a gory thrill ride that should delight fans of the series old and new.
Final Destination 5 is the perfect ending to a long and drawn out series of events. In Final Destination 4 is almost seemed as though the series would just keep going and we would see the same old story plot.
After the first two movies the sequels to those became dull and boring for me as how often can you play out the same formula? This time out, the deaths are over the top and cringe worthy and have breathed a new life into the franchise. Sure the acting is bad, but I would ask if anyone has ever gone to see any of the movies in the series for the acting?
For me it is all about the blood and guts with the outrageous death scenes and in this regard “Final Destination 5” delivers.
The studio made a very wise decision to film the entire movie in 3D rather than converting it after the fact as the opening title sequence alone is amazing with tons of glass and other objects floating in front of you in a menacing fashion.
The movie in a whole with its cheesy lines and absolutely horrible acting is made up for with the 3D effects. You will find yourself laughing often as the film plays up the humor and shock value instead of the frights. Be sure to pay close attention to references of past “Final Destination” movies as this chapter has a nice way to connect itself to the previous films. If you go to the theater with low expectations which most of you probably will you will sure to be blown away by this latest outing as this movie will provide you with great entertainment and is a must see in 3D!