Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The most fun you can have with Jack Black’s penis.
In 1995, Joe Johnston (“The Rocketeer”, “Captain America: The First Avenger”) directed “Jumanji” – a quirky, fantastical and dark film starring the late, great Robin Williams that got a rough critical reception at the time of release, but was embraced by the public and has gone on to be a modern classic. So when it was announced that a sequel was in the works 22 years later, my first reaction was “Oh no… is nothing sacred?”. It’s fair to say that I went into this flick with extremely low expectations.
But I have to say that – given this low base – I was pleasantly surprised. It’s actually quite a fun fantasy film that I predict that older kids will adore.
Seriously kick-ass. Karen Gillan – or rather one of her stunt doubles – gets hands… er… feet on with an aggressive level-character.
Initially set (neatly) in 1995, a teen – Alex (Nick Jonas, of the Jonas Brothers) unearths the board game Jumanji where it ended up buried in beach-sand at the end of the last film. “Who plays board games any more?” he scoffs, which the game hears and morphs into a game cartridge. Cheesy? Yes, but no more crazy than the goings on of the first film. Back in 2017, four high-school teens – geeky Spencer (Alex Wolff, “Patriot’s Day“); sports-jock Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain); self-obsessed beauty Bethany (Madison Iseman); and self-conscious, nerdy and shy Martha (Morgan Turner) – find the game and are sucked into it, having to complete all the game levels before they can escape.
Bethany (Madison Iseman) wishing she had her phone out for a selfie of this.
But they are not themselves in the game; they adopt the Avatars they chose to play: Dr Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“); Moose Finbar (Kevin Hart, “Get Hard“); Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan, “Dr Who”, “The Circle“; “Guardians of the Galaxy“); and Professor Shelly Oberon (Jack Black, “Sex Tape“, “Kong”). Can they combine their respective game talents – and suppress the human mental baggage they brought with them – to escape the game?
Avatars all. Kevin Hart, Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan and Jack Black.
There was a really dark time-travelling angle to the storyline of the original film – the traumatic start of Disney’s “Flight of the Navigator” was perhaps also borrowed from the concept in the book by Chris Van Allsburg. An attempt is made to recreate this in the sequel. I felt the first film rather pulled its punches though in favour of a Hollywood happy ending: will this be the case this time?
The film delivers laughs, but in a rather inconsistent fashion – it is mostly smile-worthy rather than laugh-out-loud funny. Much fun is had with the sex change of Bethany’s character, with Jack Black’s member featuring – erm – prominently. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, like a game of Top Trumps, and this also entertains. But the most humour derives from the “three lives and it’s game over” device giving the opportunity for various grisly ends, often relating to the above referenced weaknesses.
A weakness for cake… something many of us have, but not quite to this extent.
Given the cast that’s been signed up, the acting is not exactly first rate although Karen Gillan shines as the brightest star. But “it’s not bloody Shakespeare” so ham-acting is not that much of a problem and the cast all have fun with their roles. Dwayne Johnson in particular gets to play out of character as the ‘nerd within the hunk’, and his “smouldering look” skill – arched eyebrow and all – is hilarious. Rhys Darby, looking so much like Hugh Jackman that I had to do several double takes, also turns up as an English game-guide in a Land Rover, and Bobby Cannavale (“Ant Man“) is Van Pelt, the villain of the piece.
There has been much controversy over Karen Gillan’s child-sized outfit. But she is clearly a parallel to the well-endowed Lara Croft, and young male teens didn’t play that game for the jungle scenery! She is meant to be a hot and sexy video game character, and man – does she deliver! Gillan is not just hot in the film: she is #lavahot. This makes her comic attempts at flirting lessons (as the internally conflicted Martha) especially funny. Hats off to her stunt doubles as well, for some awe-inspiring martial arts fight scenes.
Seeing treble. Karen Gillan (centre) with her talented stunt doubles Joanna Bennett and Jahnel Curfman.
Fans of “Lost” will delight in the Jumanji scenery, surely one of the most over-used film locations in Hawaii if not the world!
Where the film gets bogged down is in too much cod-faced philosophizing over the teenager’s “journeys”. This is laid on in such a clunky manner in the early (slow!) scenes that the script could have been significantly tightened up. And as I said above the script, written (rather obviously) by a raft of writers, could have been so much funnier. Most of the humour comes from visually seeing what’s happening: not from the dialogue.
Directed by Jake Kasdan (son of director and Star Wars/Raiders screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan) it’s really not half as bad as it could have been and certainly not as bad as I feared: I would gladly watch it again. For it’s target audience, which is probably kids aged 10 to 14, I think they will love it. And, unlike many holiday films, the parents won’t be totally bored either (especially the Dads, for the obvious misogynistic reasons outlined above!).
But I have to say that – given this low base – I was pleasantly surprised. It’s actually quite a fun fantasy film that I predict that older kids will adore.
Seriously kick-ass. Karen Gillan – or rather one of her stunt doubles – gets hands… er… feet on with an aggressive level-character.
Initially set (neatly) in 1995, a teen – Alex (Nick Jonas, of the Jonas Brothers) unearths the board game Jumanji where it ended up buried in beach-sand at the end of the last film. “Who plays board games any more?” he scoffs, which the game hears and morphs into a game cartridge. Cheesy? Yes, but no more crazy than the goings on of the first film. Back in 2017, four high-school teens – geeky Spencer (Alex Wolff, “Patriot’s Day“); sports-jock Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain); self-obsessed beauty Bethany (Madison Iseman); and self-conscious, nerdy and shy Martha (Morgan Turner) – find the game and are sucked into it, having to complete all the game levels before they can escape.
Bethany (Madison Iseman) wishing she had her phone out for a selfie of this.
But they are not themselves in the game; they adopt the Avatars they chose to play: Dr Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“); Moose Finbar (Kevin Hart, “Get Hard“); Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan, “Dr Who”, “The Circle“; “Guardians of the Galaxy“); and Professor Shelly Oberon (Jack Black, “Sex Tape“, “Kong”). Can they combine their respective game talents – and suppress the human mental baggage they brought with them – to escape the game?
Avatars all. Kevin Hart, Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan and Jack Black.
There was a really dark time-travelling angle to the storyline of the original film – the traumatic start of Disney’s “Flight of the Navigator” was perhaps also borrowed from the concept in the book by Chris Van Allsburg. An attempt is made to recreate this in the sequel. I felt the first film rather pulled its punches though in favour of a Hollywood happy ending: will this be the case this time?
The film delivers laughs, but in a rather inconsistent fashion – it is mostly smile-worthy rather than laugh-out-loud funny. Much fun is had with the sex change of Bethany’s character, with Jack Black’s member featuring – erm – prominently. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, like a game of Top Trumps, and this also entertains. But the most humour derives from the “three lives and it’s game over” device giving the opportunity for various grisly ends, often relating to the above referenced weaknesses.
A weakness for cake… something many of us have, but not quite to this extent.
Given the cast that’s been signed up, the acting is not exactly first rate although Karen Gillan shines as the brightest star. But “it’s not bloody Shakespeare” so ham-acting is not that much of a problem and the cast all have fun with their roles. Dwayne Johnson in particular gets to play out of character as the ‘nerd within the hunk’, and his “smouldering look” skill – arched eyebrow and all – is hilarious. Rhys Darby, looking so much like Hugh Jackman that I had to do several double takes, also turns up as an English game-guide in a Land Rover, and Bobby Cannavale (“Ant Man“) is Van Pelt, the villain of the piece.
There has been much controversy over Karen Gillan’s child-sized outfit. But she is clearly a parallel to the well-endowed Lara Croft, and young male teens didn’t play that game for the jungle scenery! She is meant to be a hot and sexy video game character, and man – does she deliver! Gillan is not just hot in the film: she is #lavahot. This makes her comic attempts at flirting lessons (as the internally conflicted Martha) especially funny. Hats off to her stunt doubles as well, for some awe-inspiring martial arts fight scenes.
Seeing treble. Karen Gillan (centre) with her talented stunt doubles Joanna Bennett and Jahnel Curfman.
Fans of “Lost” will delight in the Jumanji scenery, surely one of the most over-used film locations in Hawaii if not the world!
Where the film gets bogged down is in too much cod-faced philosophizing over the teenager’s “journeys”. This is laid on in such a clunky manner in the early (slow!) scenes that the script could have been significantly tightened up. And as I said above the script, written (rather obviously) by a raft of writers, could have been so much funnier. Most of the humour comes from visually seeing what’s happening: not from the dialogue.
Directed by Jake Kasdan (son of director and Star Wars/Raiders screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan) it’s really not half as bad as it could have been and certainly not as bad as I feared: I would gladly watch it again. For it’s target audience, which is probably kids aged 10 to 14, I think they will love it. And, unlike many holiday films, the parents won’t be totally bored either (especially the Dads, for the obvious misogynistic reasons outlined above!).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The BFG (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Spielberg, where are you?
Roald Dahl’s inspiring novels have had a chequered history when it comes to turning them into films. Danny DeVito’s Matilda is widely regarded as one of the best adaptations, with Tim Burton’s Charlie & the Chocolate Factory rendered a monstrosity by fans of the author and movie critics alike.
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
So when Steven Spielberg was announced as director of The BFG, my personal favourite of all Dahl’s novels, I was equal parts pleased and wary. Could my favourite filmmaker really do this amazing book justice?
Partially is the short answer. Spielberg proves a safe pair of hands as usual, but it lacks his trademark flair, losing the darker, more brooding elements of the source material in the process.
Ten-year-old Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) experiences the adventure of a lifetime when she meets the Big Friendly Giant (Mark Rylance). Naturally scared at first, she soon realizes that the 24-foot behemoth is actually gentle and charming. As their friendship grows, Sophie’s presence attracts the unwanted attention of Bloodbottler, Fleshlumpeater and other giants. After traveling to London, Sophie and the BFG must convince the Queen to help them get rid of all the bad giants once and for all.
Casting wise, The BFG is practically spot on with Mark Rylance being exceptional in the titular role. It was always going to be hard to fill the shoes of David Jason, who tackled the character in the 1989 TV film, but he is perfect; getting the mannerisms and voice down to a tee. The motion capture used to render Rylance’s face onto the giant is breath-taking and some of the best I’ve seen. Elsewhere, Ruby Barnhill certainly has the look of Sophie, but lacks the acting finesse of some child actors.
The cinematography is both beautiful and at times hard to stomach. The opening sequence in which Sophie is taken from her bed to Giant Country is stunning, climaxing in a first-person view of the far-away land. Unfortunately, Spielberg’s avoidance of shaky cam lends an almost video-game feel to the scene that proves nauseating after a few minutes.
The BFG also suffers when both its main characters share a close-up. In particular, when Sophie is being carried by the giant, the motions look continuously jerky and spoil an otherwise impeccably rendered film – you can see where the $140million was spent.
Unfortunately, John Williams’ score lacks any sort of punch and feels sorely out of place in certain parts of the film. This is even more unusual considering the pairing of Spielberg and Williams has given us greats like Jurassic Park, E.T. and Indiana Jones.
Nevertheless, this is a sweet film that children and adults should enjoy. The themes of friendship and loneliness can resonate with all generations and a packed-out cinema proves just what a draw Roald Dahl still is to this day.
Overall, The BFG is everything most families will want from a summer holiday blockbuster. It’s sugary sweet, with great special effects, engaging acting and a wonderful story that follows its source material reasonably well. However, for Spielberg fans, it’s puzzling because the director’s presence feels a little lost. There’s a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/28/spielberg-where-are-you-the-bfg-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Kwaan in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
This game reminds me an awful lot of proteus. Very little is told to you. Wandering around a pixelated island trying to sort things out. The point and click mechanics might make you nostalgic. A peppy atmosphere and creative out lets might have you coming back to see what the community has done to the trees and chalk boards.
The game is in early access and it does show. Platforming is going to take a long while to get used to. You get around by shooting a string and pulling yourself up to a point where he can swing to get to the platform sometimes this can be very frustrating. This could be fixed by letting you slide down on the string but that has yet to be seen.
Appearance I genuinely liked the sprite animation, seems like something you might see in say a late Nintendo to early super Nintendo. Intricate works of player art can be found here and there. The over world if bright and colorful during the day.
Quest systems and leveling are something I didn’t quite get here. The story is told in the back ground and you have to go hunting for it. I got caught up in the bright atmosphere and exploring that I really did not get around to that part of the game. There is quite a bit to explore if you have the time and patience.
Ambient music is here and it does suite the mood. I do feel like it’s on an endless loop. Not to mention in the version I’m playing on there is no option menu at all. So either mute all sounds or mute it in the volume mixer. Small problem I know but several small issues can culminate into a bit one.
Velocity is another challenge, you can find yourself making a gap sometimes. Other times you will not be so lucky. Getting your string to attach to a flock of seagulls or a school of fish can feel almost impossible. Spikes and death traps are abound. When you overcome these obstacles for say a treasure chest it can be a bit underwhelming.
The mystery to it all feels very cryptic. I for the life of me could not find anything out. Admittedly I’m terrible at these kind of puzzles. Some clues would be much appreciated. End of the world is coming is about the only thing I could figure out.
The intention of the game feels good. I can see a lot of love and time went into crafting this world. Even with all its color, ambiance and charm I can see the flaws. Early accesses is a phrase I think is more than apt here. However this could be something very special with just a few tweaks.
In the end I could only recommend this game to those willing to support a modern point and click platformer. If you grew up with platformers like Mario and castlevania this might just be a bit to different. Unless you’re willing to look past the controls and or love retro sprites.
http://sknr.net/2015/04/10/kwaan-a-point-and-click-adventure/
The game is in early access and it does show. Platforming is going to take a long while to get used to. You get around by shooting a string and pulling yourself up to a point where he can swing to get to the platform sometimes this can be very frustrating. This could be fixed by letting you slide down on the string but that has yet to be seen.
Appearance I genuinely liked the sprite animation, seems like something you might see in say a late Nintendo to early super Nintendo. Intricate works of player art can be found here and there. The over world if bright and colorful during the day.
Quest systems and leveling are something I didn’t quite get here. The story is told in the back ground and you have to go hunting for it. I got caught up in the bright atmosphere and exploring that I really did not get around to that part of the game. There is quite a bit to explore if you have the time and patience.
Ambient music is here and it does suite the mood. I do feel like it’s on an endless loop. Not to mention in the version I’m playing on there is no option menu at all. So either mute all sounds or mute it in the volume mixer. Small problem I know but several small issues can culminate into a bit one.
Velocity is another challenge, you can find yourself making a gap sometimes. Other times you will not be so lucky. Getting your string to attach to a flock of seagulls or a school of fish can feel almost impossible. Spikes and death traps are abound. When you overcome these obstacles for say a treasure chest it can be a bit underwhelming.
The mystery to it all feels very cryptic. I for the life of me could not find anything out. Admittedly I’m terrible at these kind of puzzles. Some clues would be much appreciated. End of the world is coming is about the only thing I could figure out.
The intention of the game feels good. I can see a lot of love and time went into crafting this world. Even with all its color, ambiance and charm I can see the flaws. Early accesses is a phrase I think is more than apt here. However this could be something very special with just a few tweaks.
In the end I could only recommend this game to those willing to support a modern point and click platformer. If you grew up with platformers like Mario and castlevania this might just be a bit to different. Unless you’re willing to look past the controls and or love retro sprites.
http://sknr.net/2015/04/10/kwaan-a-point-and-click-adventure/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Shaun of the Dead (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With the recent influx of the walking dead at your local multiplex, it would be easy to dismiss the British film “Shaun of the Dead” as just another cheap zombie film. While few will mistake “Shaun” as a landmark in cinematic history, but despite its flaws, there are a few funny moments on the film.
The film attempts to mix horror and comedy and largely but works best if viewed as a comedic satire of the genre. Shaun, (Simon Pegg), (who also helped write the film), is a working class stiff who toils away his time in an London district selling electronics by day and squiring the love of his life Liz (Kate Ashfield), to the local pub much to her dismay as the monotony of the situation and Shaun’s obscene slacker friend Ed (Nick Frost), have worn on her last nerve.
Despite getting an ultimatum from Liz to take her to someplace other than the pub, Shaun becomes distracted and fails to secure a table elsewhere, causing Liz to storm out and send Shaun into a spiral as he begins to question his place in life and suspect that there is much more that he should be doing.
As if this was not enough of a burden for Shaun to endure, the local population seems to be acting oddly as reports of mayhem and carnage are starting to arise and the streets start to fill with Zombies. At first Shaun and Ed are oblivious to the changes around them as they continue their daily routines without noticing the blood stains, bodies and walking dead in the neighborhood, that is until one decided to attack.
Shaun and Ed soon get a nasty dose of reality and Shaun eventually decides that he must get his mother and Liz to safety, so armed with his Cricket bat, he takes on the grisly horde of undead against overwhelming odds.
While the film does have some good comedic moments, it drags horribly for the last 20 minutes as only a funny but albeit brief segment involving a zombie attack to a Queen classic is the only respite in the monotone that the film crawls to. The biggest problem is that the film seems to run out of material about 40 minutes in and the makers of the film try to stretch the film using standards from past zombie films. We have the desperate stand in a surrounded building, the improvised weapons, the infighting between survivors, and the classic bearing of the soul when it seems darkest.
I do admire the creative element that the creators of the film came up with especially with the obvious budget restrictions they were under. That being said, the film is not worthy of the praise that is being heaped upon it. Yes, it shows promise for the cast, and yes it is a nice twist on the tired zombie genre, but any momentum that was gained in the early portion of the film is quickly destroyed by the sputtering plot that crawls its way to the finish with a ho-hum climax that will disappoint any in the audience who still care.
The film attempts to mix horror and comedy and largely but works best if viewed as a comedic satire of the genre. Shaun, (Simon Pegg), (who also helped write the film), is a working class stiff who toils away his time in an London district selling electronics by day and squiring the love of his life Liz (Kate Ashfield), to the local pub much to her dismay as the monotony of the situation and Shaun’s obscene slacker friend Ed (Nick Frost), have worn on her last nerve.
Despite getting an ultimatum from Liz to take her to someplace other than the pub, Shaun becomes distracted and fails to secure a table elsewhere, causing Liz to storm out and send Shaun into a spiral as he begins to question his place in life and suspect that there is much more that he should be doing.
As if this was not enough of a burden for Shaun to endure, the local population seems to be acting oddly as reports of mayhem and carnage are starting to arise and the streets start to fill with Zombies. At first Shaun and Ed are oblivious to the changes around them as they continue their daily routines without noticing the blood stains, bodies and walking dead in the neighborhood, that is until one decided to attack.
Shaun and Ed soon get a nasty dose of reality and Shaun eventually decides that he must get his mother and Liz to safety, so armed with his Cricket bat, he takes on the grisly horde of undead against overwhelming odds.
While the film does have some good comedic moments, it drags horribly for the last 20 minutes as only a funny but albeit brief segment involving a zombie attack to a Queen classic is the only respite in the monotone that the film crawls to. The biggest problem is that the film seems to run out of material about 40 minutes in and the makers of the film try to stretch the film using standards from past zombie films. We have the desperate stand in a surrounded building, the improvised weapons, the infighting between survivors, and the classic bearing of the soul when it seems darkest.
I do admire the creative element that the creators of the film came up with especially with the obvious budget restrictions they were under. That being said, the film is not worthy of the praise that is being heaped upon it. Yes, it shows promise for the cast, and yes it is a nice twist on the tired zombie genre, but any momentum that was gained in the early portion of the film is quickly destroyed by the sputtering plot that crawls its way to the finish with a ho-hum climax that will disappoint any in the audience who still care.
Kevin Wilson (179 KP) rated Spyro Trilogy Reignited in Video Games
Jan 23, 2019
Looks beautiful and colourful (3 more)
Satisfies your collecting addictions
Fun characters and witty dialogue
3 games in 1 well worth the money
Fantastic remaster with 1 huge flaw
This game was just loads and loads of fun. This is the ultimated game of collectibles. Its basically the point and it works today because thats what we like to do in games.
The game looks beautiful and colourful. The characters are fun and are very witty. There have been some slight changes with enemies here and theres. Sounds were changed and bullets were changed to paint which didnt need to be done.
The first game was the most simplest of the games. Go through levels collecting gems and dragons and thats it. It doesnt sound like the most in depth story but it was a ton of fun and in a way i prefered it to the 2nd game.
The 2nd had a lot more objectives within levels and had a bigger emphasis on backtracking. You couldnt swim or climb until later so you would have to go back to a previous level to 100% it. I didnt mind it too much, the levels are fun. Spyro has a lot more abilities with this game too. Like i said, swimming and climbing being a couple. You only had to touch the water in the first and you would be dead.
The 3rd was my favourite of the 3. It felt like it merged the 2 games. Had the objectives of the 2nd game while keeping it simple. But i got to the 3rd world out of 4 and experienced a game breaking glitch in the lost fleet level that forcrd me to restart the entire game since you cant restart the level. It was so annoying when i was trying to 100% the games but the games were fun enough to go through again. I just feel its sloppy work of the developers that this glitch got through testing or that it has not been patched yet since many people have had this glitch too.
In a game thats out now it is also shocking that there are no subtitle options either. It feels this is a must nowadays but they left it out. The only patch this game has seen was on day one and you have to download it because it is only the 1st game that is on the disk. The patch enables the other 2. When you see games like the crash trilogy and uncharted the nathan drake collection you would think it would be simple to put all bames on the disk.
Overall though its fun and has a great difficulty to it that feels very satisfying. I would recommend it, just be careful and dont rush to complete an objective. Thats what caused the glitch for me.
The game looks beautiful and colourful. The characters are fun and are very witty. There have been some slight changes with enemies here and theres. Sounds were changed and bullets were changed to paint which didnt need to be done.
The first game was the most simplest of the games. Go through levels collecting gems and dragons and thats it. It doesnt sound like the most in depth story but it was a ton of fun and in a way i prefered it to the 2nd game.
The 2nd had a lot more objectives within levels and had a bigger emphasis on backtracking. You couldnt swim or climb until later so you would have to go back to a previous level to 100% it. I didnt mind it too much, the levels are fun. Spyro has a lot more abilities with this game too. Like i said, swimming and climbing being a couple. You only had to touch the water in the first and you would be dead.
The 3rd was my favourite of the 3. It felt like it merged the 2 games. Had the objectives of the 2nd game while keeping it simple. But i got to the 3rd world out of 4 and experienced a game breaking glitch in the lost fleet level that forcrd me to restart the entire game since you cant restart the level. It was so annoying when i was trying to 100% the games but the games were fun enough to go through again. I just feel its sloppy work of the developers that this glitch got through testing or that it has not been patched yet since many people have had this glitch too.
In a game thats out now it is also shocking that there are no subtitle options either. It feels this is a must nowadays but they left it out. The only patch this game has seen was on day one and you have to download it because it is only the 1st game that is on the disk. The patch enables the other 2. When you see games like the crash trilogy and uncharted the nathan drake collection you would think it would be simple to put all bames on the disk.
Overall though its fun and has a great difficulty to it that feels very satisfying. I would recommend it, just be careful and dont rush to complete an objective. Thats what caused the glitch for me.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Snow Child in Books
May 30, 2017
A Fairytale
“Terrific”, “Spellbinding” and “Enchanting” are just three of the many words that critics have used to describe this book; they are also a slight exaggeration. Obviously it is a matter of personal opinion but this novel, whilst having an interesting storyline, was a little too drawn out and, at times… not exactly boring but not all that gripping.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, Snegurochka, which in English translates to The Snow Maiden. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, Little Daughter of the Snow, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with Snegurochka and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that The Snow Child will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, The Snow Child was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, Snegurochka, which in English translates to The Snow Maiden. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, Little Daughter of the Snow, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with Snegurochka and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that The Snow Child will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, The Snow Child was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Snow Child in Books
Dec 14, 2018
“Terrific”, “Spellbinding” and “Enchanting” are just three of the many words that critics have used to describe this book; they are also a slight exaggeration. Obviously it is a matter of personal opinion but this novel, whilst having an interesting storyline, was a little too drawn out and, at times… not exactly boring but not all that gripping.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, <i>Snegurochka</i>, which in English translates to <i>The Snow Maiden</i>. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, <i>Little Daughter of the Snow</i>, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with <i>Snegurochka</i> and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that <i>The Snow Child</i> will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, <i>The Snow Child</i> was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, <i>Snegurochka</i>, which in English translates to <i>The Snow Maiden</i>. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, <i>Little Daughter of the Snow</i>, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with <i>Snegurochka</i> and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that <i>The Snow Child</i> will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, <i>The Snow Child</i> was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
DNB Latvija
Finance and Utilities
App
Tava banka Tavā telefonā! Izmēģiniet DNB mobilo aplikāciju un novērtējiet iespēju ērti,...
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Delirium in Books
Jun 7, 2018
Review from my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
I really, really, really wanted to like this book. In fact, I wanted to love it, but it just didn't happen. I just couldn't get into it at all no matter how hard I tried. It's gotten some rave reviews so maybe there's just something wrong with me.
Lena is a seventeen year old girl who doesn't challenge anything about her government. She's too scared of the consequences. In a few months, on her 18th birthday, she'll be cured of the disease, the disease of love. She's looking forward to the day she can be cured of love. In fact, she's counting down the days. However, everything changes when she meets the gorgeous Alex, an invalid (another name for someone who is uncured after their 18th birthday). Now she doesn't want to be cured as Alex has opened her eyes to this disease called love. Lena is wondering if love was ever really a disease at all. Lena is putting herself at risk to be with Alex. Will she have her happy ever after or will she be cured?
The world building isn't bad. The story takes place in Portland. The author does a great job of trying to make the reader believe in a world where love is banned. It is quite believable.
I don't think the cover suits the book at all. Lauren Oliver has a habit of just putting faces on the covers of her books. However, I think this is the easy way out. Putting a photo of a face on a book doesn't really tell us anything about the book. I wish Ms. Oliver would consider changing her covers to make them relevant to the actual story.
The title, however, definitely suits the book. Love is seen as a type of delirium. It's banned, and the government wants everyone to believe how love will make you delirious. It's a great title for the book.
I found the pacing to be too slow for my liking. Don't get me wrong, it's written quite nicely, but it's just too slow. I had to force myself to read the book most of the time. I just couldn't get into it, and I found myself not really caring about the characters. There is one good bit, and it's only about two or three chapters towards the middle of the book.
The dialogue is easy to understand and is written beautifully. There are a few swear words however. (Lena drops the f-bomb a couple of times and the s word is used a couple of times as well). The good thing is this book isn't littered with swear words which is nice.
I just couldn't relate to any of the characters. Lena drove me crazy!! She was too much of a goody goody and too scared throughout the book. It especially annoyed me when she couldn't tell the difference if she was crying or sweating. I've never had a problem telling the difference!! And Alex, nothing really annoyed me about him, but I just couldn't feel him if you know what I mean. I basically found that I couldn't give a toss about what happened to Lena and Alex. I did like Hana as she was more of a free spirit and willing to take risks. I liked how full of life she was. She was the only character I kind of cared about, but she wasn't a main character, nor was she mentioned as much as I would've liked her to be.
Throughout most of the book I just felt really bored with the book which made me kind of sad because I really wanted to enjoy this book after reading some reviews about how great this book was. It was a challenge for me to get through the book, save for two or three chapters. This book just didn't really do anything for me, and I won't be reading the rest of the series as I don't really care what happens.
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. It's just too boring and is lacking something.
Overall, I'd rate Delirium by Lauren Oliver a 2.5 out of a 5.
I really, really, really wanted to like this book. In fact, I wanted to love it, but it just didn't happen. I just couldn't get into it at all no matter how hard I tried. It's gotten some rave reviews so maybe there's just something wrong with me.
Lena is a seventeen year old girl who doesn't challenge anything about her government. She's too scared of the consequences. In a few months, on her 18th birthday, she'll be cured of the disease, the disease of love. She's looking forward to the day she can be cured of love. In fact, she's counting down the days. However, everything changes when she meets the gorgeous Alex, an invalid (another name for someone who is uncured after their 18th birthday). Now she doesn't want to be cured as Alex has opened her eyes to this disease called love. Lena is wondering if love was ever really a disease at all. Lena is putting herself at risk to be with Alex. Will she have her happy ever after or will she be cured?
The world building isn't bad. The story takes place in Portland. The author does a great job of trying to make the reader believe in a world where love is banned. It is quite believable.
I don't think the cover suits the book at all. Lauren Oliver has a habit of just putting faces on the covers of her books. However, I think this is the easy way out. Putting a photo of a face on a book doesn't really tell us anything about the book. I wish Ms. Oliver would consider changing her covers to make them relevant to the actual story.
The title, however, definitely suits the book. Love is seen as a type of delirium. It's banned, and the government wants everyone to believe how love will make you delirious. It's a great title for the book.
I found the pacing to be too slow for my liking. Don't get me wrong, it's written quite nicely, but it's just too slow. I had to force myself to read the book most of the time. I just couldn't get into it, and I found myself not really caring about the characters. There is one good bit, and it's only about two or three chapters towards the middle of the book.
The dialogue is easy to understand and is written beautifully. There are a few swear words however. (Lena drops the f-bomb a couple of times and the s word is used a couple of times as well). The good thing is this book isn't littered with swear words which is nice.
I just couldn't relate to any of the characters. Lena drove me crazy!! She was too much of a goody goody and too scared throughout the book. It especially annoyed me when she couldn't tell the difference if she was crying or sweating. I've never had a problem telling the difference!! And Alex, nothing really annoyed me about him, but I just couldn't feel him if you know what I mean. I basically found that I couldn't give a toss about what happened to Lena and Alex. I did like Hana as she was more of a free spirit and willing to take risks. I liked how full of life she was. She was the only character I kind of cared about, but she wasn't a main character, nor was she mentioned as much as I would've liked her to be.
Throughout most of the book I just felt really bored with the book which made me kind of sad because I really wanted to enjoy this book after reading some reviews about how great this book was. It was a challenge for me to get through the book, save for two or three chapters. This book just didn't really do anything for me, and I won't be reading the rest of the series as I don't really care what happens.
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. It's just too boring and is lacking something.
Overall, I'd rate Delirium by Lauren Oliver a 2.5 out of a 5.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
More CGI animals in another adaptation of a franchise that has been around since the 1920s. I do so love Eddie Murphy's comedy portrayal, am I ready for a period appropriate version?
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html