Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Nov 1, 2020)
Not Much More Than The Same Goofy Undead Routine
Contains spoilers, click to show
This movie was pretty entertaining when I saw it in theaters but I was more than a little disappointed in the movie as a whole, especially when it was 10 years in the making, and because of how much I loved the original movie. As I mentioned above this movie started off strong with the introduction about how the zombies were changing or evolving. The 3 types were: Homers, which were so dumb they were almost not a threat, Hawkings, which were smarter than the average zombie, and Ninjas, which are the silent and stealthy types. The whole montage of them whooping zombie ass on the lawn of the White House was awesome too. The movie was going smooth to be but I didn't like how the plot felt recycled because of the girls leaving them and stealing their car just like the first one. I can see a lot of people being annoyed with the dumb blonde character Madison, but to me her scenes were generally pretty funny and I couldn't help but bust out laughing with that seat belt scene. The one character that I never really liked in the movie was Avan Jogia's character Berkeley. He was just a plot device that got the story moving and never really did anything except be a pacifist hippie who played the guitar and the love interest for Little Rock. She totally winds up stealing the car from Wichita and leaving her stranded. A lot of the movie I think probably sounded better on paper then it wound up coming out in the film. Like for example the new type of zombie called the T-800's (after the terminator) were tougher to kill, they showed how it dodge bullets like Neo from Matrix and even took a lot of bullets and kept on going until it had it's head smashed in. But the movie lost at lot of those good things along the way. The Homers come out again in a few scenes, they mention a Hawking but it didn't really do anything special, and they never showed a ninja. Also the T-800's who were so un-killable earlier are shown to be easily killable later. When the gang is at the hippie strong hold Babylon, which in itself is ridiculous, they do a plan to take out the horde of T-800's coming their way. There is a part where they are being swarmed by them and they have no weapons other than melee ones and are easily killing all the T-800s around them. Yeah the whole hippie stronghold place was a big stretch for me too. I mean it had walls to protected them and rules for new people like no guns (which they confiscate and melt), but there's no way they could be there for 10 years with no weapons surviving in the zombie apocalypse. Just like the character Madison surviving in the mall living in a freezer in Pinkberry for 10 years. It's just a lot of the logic went out the window. But still it was an above average zombie movie and that's why I give it a 6/10.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Witness in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
A classic ‘game’ from my childhood (seriously, we played it all the time) was Telephone. You know the one – someone whispers something to their neighbor, that person whispers it to their neighbor, and so on until it’s made its way around the group. Hilarity ensues when the final person reveals what they heard – usually a far cry from the original message! So when Travis pulled out Witness, a modern twist on Telephone, I knew that all my years of training would finally amount to something!
Witness is a cooperative game of memory and deduction set in the world of the 1940’s comic “Blake and Mortimer.” You and your compatriots are working together to solve mysteries! But there’s a catch – you each only know certain information, and are limited in how you are allowed to disclose it to each other. If you could just say it outright, there’d be no fun! Each player gets a character book filled with cases and information. Everyone reads their information for the chosen case, and then, like in Telephone, and in a certain order, players whisper their information to the player next to them. Play continues until everyone has heard (through the grapevine, of course) all 4 players’ information. After all information has been relayed, players get a chance to write down any notes from what they remember – but only after everything has been said! Players then open the Questions booklet to their specific case and answer three questions about their specific puzzle. Players receive points for correct answers, and as a team, are attempting to achieve the highest score possible!
I think that Witness is such a neat game. It’s a fun mechanic – you’re trying to remember all of your information to accurately pass it on, only to hear more information to add to what you already need to remember, to then pass it on again! It definitely makes for some funny misheard information! Another aspect of Witness that I like is that it goes beyond a regular game of Telephone in the fact that there’s an end goal – you’re trying to piece together all of the information as you hear it second- or even third-hand to correctly answer some questions. There’s more pressure to communicate accurately because you and your team are striving for a compilation of perfect information to help you score the most endgame points. Witness ups the stakes more than your average game of Telephone, and that’s what makes it interesting and engaging for me.
The major downside of Witness is that it is a game for EXACTLY 4 players. You can’t play with 3. You can’t play with 5. It absolutely 100% must be played with 4 players. And sometimes that’s just not possible. We all know those game nights where maybe only 2 or 3 people are available. Or maybe those times when you invite a large number of people over and they all come. In either scenario, Witness is out, and that is a bummer because it is such a neat game. Since the information is divided between 4 books, there’s unfortunately no way to adapt it for other player counts. So you can either play Witness or you can’t – there’s no ‘maybe.’
Overall, I enjoy playing Witness. I think it’s a unique approach to a simple game. Unfortunately, I believe this game is out of print, but if you can get your hands on a copy, or you see it on a friend’s shelf, give it a play! Whispering to your neighbor and solving little logic puzzles never seemed so fun! Purple Phoenix Games gives Witness a mysterious 11 / 18.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/04/02/witness-review/
Witness is a cooperative game of memory and deduction set in the world of the 1940’s comic “Blake and Mortimer.” You and your compatriots are working together to solve mysteries! But there’s a catch – you each only know certain information, and are limited in how you are allowed to disclose it to each other. If you could just say it outright, there’d be no fun! Each player gets a character book filled with cases and information. Everyone reads their information for the chosen case, and then, like in Telephone, and in a certain order, players whisper their information to the player next to them. Play continues until everyone has heard (through the grapevine, of course) all 4 players’ information. After all information has been relayed, players get a chance to write down any notes from what they remember – but only after everything has been said! Players then open the Questions booklet to their specific case and answer three questions about their specific puzzle. Players receive points for correct answers, and as a team, are attempting to achieve the highest score possible!
I think that Witness is such a neat game. It’s a fun mechanic – you’re trying to remember all of your information to accurately pass it on, only to hear more information to add to what you already need to remember, to then pass it on again! It definitely makes for some funny misheard information! Another aspect of Witness that I like is that it goes beyond a regular game of Telephone in the fact that there’s an end goal – you’re trying to piece together all of the information as you hear it second- or even third-hand to correctly answer some questions. There’s more pressure to communicate accurately because you and your team are striving for a compilation of perfect information to help you score the most endgame points. Witness ups the stakes more than your average game of Telephone, and that’s what makes it interesting and engaging for me.
The major downside of Witness is that it is a game for EXACTLY 4 players. You can’t play with 3. You can’t play with 5. It absolutely 100% must be played with 4 players. And sometimes that’s just not possible. We all know those game nights where maybe only 2 or 3 people are available. Or maybe those times when you invite a large number of people over and they all come. In either scenario, Witness is out, and that is a bummer because it is such a neat game. Since the information is divided between 4 books, there’s unfortunately no way to adapt it for other player counts. So you can either play Witness or you can’t – there’s no ‘maybe.’
Overall, I enjoy playing Witness. I think it’s a unique approach to a simple game. Unfortunately, I believe this game is out of print, but if you can get your hands on a copy, or you see it on a friend’s shelf, give it a play! Whispering to your neighbor and solving little logic puzzles never seemed so fun! Purple Phoenix Games gives Witness a mysterious 11 / 18.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/04/02/witness-review/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated This Secret We're Keeping in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
A pupil and a teacher. Is it ever right to break the rules?</i> This is the dilemma which debut author Rebecca Done basis her novel on. <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> is set seventeen years after a maths teacher began an inappropriate relationship with a schoolgirl; but did he really deserve what happened to him, after all he loved her and she loved him?
Jess has never got over her love for the teacher she ran away with when she was fifteen. Although she has got her life together: living in Norfolk, freelance catering business, a rich boyfriend; she cannot help but think back to way Mr. Landley, Matthew, made her feel. Suddenly, after a chance encounter, Matthew is back in her life with a new name, Will, and a girlfriend and daughter. Delighted to see each other again, it is not long before they fall back into their illicit affair, however the potential consequences are almost as bad as the previous time.
<i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> causes the reader to question strong personal beliefs, primarily whether a teacher-student relationship is as wrong as it sounds. If certain events in this novel were to be made public through the media, the majority would instantly hate Matthew, deem him a paedophile, and be satisfied with his punishment. However on reading the situation from his point of view, initial opinions begin to crumble. It appears he genuinely loved Jess, and she him; there were no abusive occurrences, and it was Jess that instigated the relationship in the first place. Did Matthew truly deserve to go to prison for something that would have been legal in a year’s time?
Matthew/Will’s narrative helps to show that it is virtually impossible to pinpoint a single moment that changes a life forever. At which point did he know that he had stepped over the line from right to wrong? In hindsight it is fairly obvious, but at the time the warning signs are not so clear.
Due to the challenging of preset judgments, <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> can often be difficult to read. Whilst on the one hand logic will be screaming, “This is wrong!” Done plays with her readers’ sentimentalities to consider the other side of the argument. As the novel progresses it becomes easier to fall in line with Jess and Matthew/Will’s viewpoints, however a brief interaction towards the end forces readers to temporarily reconsider their forgone conclusion. After all, how much can a first person narrative really be trusted?
Having read the blurb I admit I was a bit wary about reading this book. For one, it falls under the genre of Chick Lit, which I am not all that fond of, but secondly the book’s theme appeared rather controversial. On the whole, <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> was much better than I was anticipating, however I began to lose interest towards the end as nothing much had changed throughout the present day chapters, and it was already obvious how the past narrative would pan out. The ending is also frustratingly ambiguous, as we never find out whether either of the key characters gets a “happy ever after.”
If you are someone who enjoys Chick Lit, do not let the themes of the book put you off. <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> is essentially a romance story, one that is written remarkably well for a first time author. Rebecca Done will be a name to look out for in the world of contemporary literature.
A pupil and a teacher. Is it ever right to break the rules?</i> This is the dilemma which debut author Rebecca Done basis her novel on. <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> is set seventeen years after a maths teacher began an inappropriate relationship with a schoolgirl; but did he really deserve what happened to him, after all he loved her and she loved him?
Jess has never got over her love for the teacher she ran away with when she was fifteen. Although she has got her life together: living in Norfolk, freelance catering business, a rich boyfriend; she cannot help but think back to way Mr. Landley, Matthew, made her feel. Suddenly, after a chance encounter, Matthew is back in her life with a new name, Will, and a girlfriend and daughter. Delighted to see each other again, it is not long before they fall back into their illicit affair, however the potential consequences are almost as bad as the previous time.
<i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> causes the reader to question strong personal beliefs, primarily whether a teacher-student relationship is as wrong as it sounds. If certain events in this novel were to be made public through the media, the majority would instantly hate Matthew, deem him a paedophile, and be satisfied with his punishment. However on reading the situation from his point of view, initial opinions begin to crumble. It appears he genuinely loved Jess, and she him; there were no abusive occurrences, and it was Jess that instigated the relationship in the first place. Did Matthew truly deserve to go to prison for something that would have been legal in a year’s time?
Matthew/Will’s narrative helps to show that it is virtually impossible to pinpoint a single moment that changes a life forever. At which point did he know that he had stepped over the line from right to wrong? In hindsight it is fairly obvious, but at the time the warning signs are not so clear.
Due to the challenging of preset judgments, <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> can often be difficult to read. Whilst on the one hand logic will be screaming, “This is wrong!” Done plays with her readers’ sentimentalities to consider the other side of the argument. As the novel progresses it becomes easier to fall in line with Jess and Matthew/Will’s viewpoints, however a brief interaction towards the end forces readers to temporarily reconsider their forgone conclusion. After all, how much can a first person narrative really be trusted?
Having read the blurb I admit I was a bit wary about reading this book. For one, it falls under the genre of Chick Lit, which I am not all that fond of, but secondly the book’s theme appeared rather controversial. On the whole, <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> was much better than I was anticipating, however I began to lose interest towards the end as nothing much had changed throughout the present day chapters, and it was already obvious how the past narrative would pan out. The ending is also frustratingly ambiguous, as we never find out whether either of the key characters gets a “happy ever after.”
If you are someone who enjoys Chick Lit, do not let the themes of the book put you off. <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> is essentially a romance story, one that is written remarkably well for a first time author. Rebecca Done will be a name to look out for in the world of contemporary literature.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Oct 4, 2018 (Updated Oct 4, 2018)
Unexpectedly fun and comical (1 more)
Tom Hardy
This Is The Movie That Everyone Hates?
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have to be honest, I was not on-board with this film going in at all. I wasn't interested in a Spiderman-less Spiderman universe and the trailers didn't exactly sell me on it either. It looked like they were messing with the origin of Venom too much and the action set pieces didn't look too impressive. Then there was the fact that the review embargo was only lifted a day before the movie's release, then there were the terrible reviews. Suffice to say I went into this with a morbid curiosity expecting a total mess.
However, I am happy to report that this movie actually really pleasantly surprised me and I had a ton of fun watching Venom.
When I heard that Tom Hardy was playing Eddie Brock, I was really gutted because I think that he would have been the perfect choice for the MCU's Wolverine. I also thought that this was going to be a mistake in terms of Hardy's career; out of all of the superhero movies he could have been a part of, he chose Venom? I was happy to be proven wrong, Hardy was great in both his role as Eddie Brock and as Venom. He was funny, scary and heartfelt at all the right moments and looked like he was having a good time playing the character.
This movie did remind me a lot of Upgrade, which was also a Sci-fi movie released this year with a protagonist who gains a voice in his head and extraordinary powers that he doesn't have any control over. Coincidentally Tom Hardy also looks strikingly similar to the actor in Upgrade, Logan-Marshall Green. If I had to compare the two movies, I personally preferred Upgrade, but I had a lot of fun with both of them.
And that's the best thing about this movie, it is fun. Sure, it's not a comic book accurate Venom origin and it's not connected to the MCU's Spiderman and it's not up to snuff compared to the recent entries in the MCU, but it is a ton of fun to watch this violent alien join forces with a witty, down on his luck reporter and wreak havoc.
I'm going to drop a few spoilers going forward, so if you have yet to see the movie, you should probably click away now.
The thing that was really bothering me during the opening of the movie was; why is this story taking place in San Francisco? Eddie Brock is a New Yorker, not a San Franciscan. Then they addressed that issue and explained that he had moved away from New York. It was only a brief, throwaway line, but they didn't have to bother including it and I appreciate that they did.
I also really enjoyed the brief appearance of She-Venom. Sure, the odds that this Symbiote that rejects almost every human host that it comes into contact with, just happens to bond perfectly with this couple, is a bit of a stretch. However, this is a comic book movie with aliens, so I'm willing to accept a few stretches in the movie's logic.
Lastly I like the fact that they teased Carnage in the post credits tease and I am glad that they got Woody Harrelson to play him, he is one of my favourite actors... but my God he looked really dumb in that red wig, like almost parody bad.
Overall, although I had extremely low expectations going into Venom, it exceeded them by a great deal. Sure, it's not Infinity War and it's not even Spiderman: Homecoming, but it is a lot of fun and there is definitely a good amount of enjoyment to be had in Venom.
However, I am happy to report that this movie actually really pleasantly surprised me and I had a ton of fun watching Venom.
When I heard that Tom Hardy was playing Eddie Brock, I was really gutted because I think that he would have been the perfect choice for the MCU's Wolverine. I also thought that this was going to be a mistake in terms of Hardy's career; out of all of the superhero movies he could have been a part of, he chose Venom? I was happy to be proven wrong, Hardy was great in both his role as Eddie Brock and as Venom. He was funny, scary and heartfelt at all the right moments and looked like he was having a good time playing the character.
This movie did remind me a lot of Upgrade, which was also a Sci-fi movie released this year with a protagonist who gains a voice in his head and extraordinary powers that he doesn't have any control over. Coincidentally Tom Hardy also looks strikingly similar to the actor in Upgrade, Logan-Marshall Green. If I had to compare the two movies, I personally preferred Upgrade, but I had a lot of fun with both of them.
And that's the best thing about this movie, it is fun. Sure, it's not a comic book accurate Venom origin and it's not connected to the MCU's Spiderman and it's not up to snuff compared to the recent entries in the MCU, but it is a ton of fun to watch this violent alien join forces with a witty, down on his luck reporter and wreak havoc.
I'm going to drop a few spoilers going forward, so if you have yet to see the movie, you should probably click away now.
The thing that was really bothering me during the opening of the movie was; why is this story taking place in San Francisco? Eddie Brock is a New Yorker, not a San Franciscan. Then they addressed that issue and explained that he had moved away from New York. It was only a brief, throwaway line, but they didn't have to bother including it and I appreciate that they did.
I also really enjoyed the brief appearance of She-Venom. Sure, the odds that this Symbiote that rejects almost every human host that it comes into contact with, just happens to bond perfectly with this couple, is a bit of a stretch. However, this is a comic book movie with aliens, so I'm willing to accept a few stretches in the movie's logic.
Lastly I like the fact that they teased Carnage in the post credits tease and I am glad that they got Woody Harrelson to play him, he is one of my favourite actors... but my God he looked really dumb in that red wig, like almost parody bad.
Overall, although I had extremely low expectations going into Venom, it exceeded them by a great deal. Sure, it's not Infinity War and it's not even Spiderman: Homecoming, but it is a lot of fun and there is definitely a good amount of enjoyment to be had in Venom.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hostage (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Chief of Police Jeff Talley (Bruce Willis) is a man filled with turmoil. A former S.W.A.T. officer and top hostage negotiator for the Los Angeles Police Department, Talley now toils away in a quite California town where crime is light and very infrequent. The change in locales was made necessary for Jeff in the aftermath of a hostage negotiation where things did not go accordingly leaving Jeff with more questions than answers.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Escape Room (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
TL;DR - I'm never doing an escape room ever again, and potentially never going anywhere that begins with a mysterious invitation.
The film opens, somewhat strangely, with some of the last scenes of the movie. I'm not sure whether this helped the film along or not. We already knew what to expect before going in so starting with the intrigue of the invitations probably would have worked just as well, it did at least ease you in to what you'd be getting from the rest of the film.
I was a little disappointed that we didn't get an intro to all of the characters. Admittedly six intro pieces would have made the beginning of the story drag but it felt a little odd to have the other three thrown in with no context. On the plus side you are able to infer some things about their back story as we go through the film, but I don't quite see the logic behind who they included and excluded.
Drama, mystery, sci-fi, thriller... that's how IMDb classified Escape Room, and this is why I don't know why we bother pigeon holing films. It's definitely a thriller and can loosely fit into the horror genre (I only say loosely because of it's lack of gore) but to claim any of the others is a stretch.
In what was probably a rather average film I was glad to see some pieces that impressed me. Amanda (Deborah Ann Woll) has a flashback during one of their escapes and the transition was seamless. Woll's performance overall was probably the best, she goes from vulnerable to woman of action and in each scene she creates something that I found incredibly believable.
Tyler Labine is one of my favourite "hidden" gems of the movie world so I was excited to see he was part of this. My excitement was short lived though as his character wasn't given much opportunity to shine as his story is largely overlooked until the very last minute.
One of the issues I have at the cinema is that I suffer from mild motion sickness, generally I'm okay but on occasion the weirdest things can set it off. This film gave me a near heart attack when it entered the pool room, you can see it during the trailer, the room is basically upside down but that combined with the camera shots meant I had to keep looking at my feet for fear of either passing out or throwing up on my fellow cinema goers.
The idea behind the film had a lot of potential and up to a certain point I was enjoying what was happening... but that ending. My brain suddenly stopped and went "huh, Belko Experiment." I'm not generally a watcher of horror type films but from the comments I've seen online Escape Room is similar to a lot of things already out there. What I know is that it's predictable. Probably more so because of the way the film starts, the premise of an escape room, and the trailer. It does have some things up its sleeve though.
For someone who is easily scared out of their skin I didn't have a problem watching this (apart from that pool room scene), a lot of the really jumpy bits I'd already seen before going into the film. Until the memory of this film is washed away by several dozen other films I will not be setting foot in an escape room, and they should probably look at suing the film for lose of revenue.
What you should do
It's an entertaining film and if thrillers/horrors are your sort of thing then you should give it a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Needless to say there is basically nothing I want from this movie apart from the little piece of sanity and rational thinking it stole from me.
The film opens, somewhat strangely, with some of the last scenes of the movie. I'm not sure whether this helped the film along or not. We already knew what to expect before going in so starting with the intrigue of the invitations probably would have worked just as well, it did at least ease you in to what you'd be getting from the rest of the film.
I was a little disappointed that we didn't get an intro to all of the characters. Admittedly six intro pieces would have made the beginning of the story drag but it felt a little odd to have the other three thrown in with no context. On the plus side you are able to infer some things about their back story as we go through the film, but I don't quite see the logic behind who they included and excluded.
Drama, mystery, sci-fi, thriller... that's how IMDb classified Escape Room, and this is why I don't know why we bother pigeon holing films. It's definitely a thriller and can loosely fit into the horror genre (I only say loosely because of it's lack of gore) but to claim any of the others is a stretch.
In what was probably a rather average film I was glad to see some pieces that impressed me. Amanda (Deborah Ann Woll) has a flashback during one of their escapes and the transition was seamless. Woll's performance overall was probably the best, she goes from vulnerable to woman of action and in each scene she creates something that I found incredibly believable.
Tyler Labine is one of my favourite "hidden" gems of the movie world so I was excited to see he was part of this. My excitement was short lived though as his character wasn't given much opportunity to shine as his story is largely overlooked until the very last minute.
One of the issues I have at the cinema is that I suffer from mild motion sickness, generally I'm okay but on occasion the weirdest things can set it off. This film gave me a near heart attack when it entered the pool room, you can see it during the trailer, the room is basically upside down but that combined with the camera shots meant I had to keep looking at my feet for fear of either passing out or throwing up on my fellow cinema goers.
The idea behind the film had a lot of potential and up to a certain point I was enjoying what was happening... but that ending. My brain suddenly stopped and went "huh, Belko Experiment." I'm not generally a watcher of horror type films but from the comments I've seen online Escape Room is similar to a lot of things already out there. What I know is that it's predictable. Probably more so because of the way the film starts, the premise of an escape room, and the trailer. It does have some things up its sleeve though.
For someone who is easily scared out of their skin I didn't have a problem watching this (apart from that pool room scene), a lot of the really jumpy bits I'd already seen before going into the film. Until the memory of this film is washed away by several dozen other films I will not be setting foot in an escape room, and they should probably look at suing the film for lose of revenue.
What you should do
It's an entertaining film and if thrillers/horrors are your sort of thing then you should give it a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Needless to say there is basically nothing I want from this movie apart from the little piece of sanity and rational thinking it stole from me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 2012 (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Disaster films and Hollywood have enjoyed a long and successful partnership over the years as box office gold has been found in fictional disasters. Irwin Allen had a string of hits such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure” which in turn lead to the films such as “Dante’s Peak”, “Volcano”, “Deep Impact”, and “Armageddon” who kept the tried and true formula of relatable, regular people forced to cope with extraordinary situations where they must battle against all odds to survive.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.
In the new film “2012” director Roland Emmerich follows up his other end-of-the world epics “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow”, with a story about the total devastation of the earth and all life upon it due to an increase of neutrinos from the sun heating the earth’s core causing the displacement of the Earth’s crust.
Keeping to the established formula of the disaster films, 2012 centers around a struggling writer named Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who learns of the pending catastrophic events while camping at Yellowstone National Park with his children. The presence of forbidden areas and swarms of soldiers and scientists leads Jackson to believe that the local conspiracy radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), might be right in his predictions that we are all on borrowed time, and that the increase in earthquakes and fissures along the fault lines are a very bad omen.
Unbeknownst to Jackson, and the majority of the world’s population, U.S. President Wilson (Danny Glover), and his fellow heads of state, are preparing for the coming tragedy. Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and a team of geologists lead by Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetal Ojiofore) are trying to determine exactly how much time they have to save what they can of humanity. Unaware that the fate of mankind is being decided by the politicians and those with money, Jackson and his children soon find themselves rushing to stay alive, with his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet), and her boyfriend in tow. Jackson learns of a plan to save select members of the population and pins their very survival on being able to arrive at what they hope is their salvation before time runs out.
Spectacular effects follow as Los Angeles and other cities are swallowed up by massive sinkholes and buried under collapsing bridges and buildings in some of the most amazing sequences of mayhem and destruction ever captured on film. The movie does an amazing job of showing the absolute calamity and chaos and does a passable job with the relationships between the characters. There are some nice supporting performances from Thandie Newton and George Segal. It is just a shame they were not given a bit more to work with. The cookie cutter scenarios that many characters faced seem to have been lifted from the book of disaster film plots.
I did not go into the film expecting realism, as I fully expect the world will go on as normal on December 22, 2012. However, I did have to note some of the absurd developments that strained any semblance of credibility the film may have had. One such scene had the characters being flooded and trapped for an extended period of time by water. Since their locale was near Mt Everest, I had to assume that it was not warm spring water they were submerged in, and had to wonder if hypothermia just went the way of most of the human populace.
Then again, we were dealing with a heated core that was essentially melting the earth’s crust. So maybe the water was warm.
As with all disaster movies, I do have to remember the audience is asked to suspend all disbelief, at least for 160 minutes. While the film does take some vast leaps of logic, there is enough good action, special effects, and strained levity to make this a good distraction, as long as you are willing to check your brain at the door and just enjoy the ride.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Safe House (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In a complicated deadly game of international espionage things are rarely what they appear to be. Take the case of Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds), a young man who, for all intents and purposes, appears to divide his time between his adoring French girlfriend (Nora Arnezeder) and a South African hospital. But if one were to pull back the curtain they would learn that Matt is actually a CIA agent who spends his time watching over a safe house, an assignment of painfully tedious monotony.
In the new action thriller “Safe House”, Reynolds eschews his typical charming, cocky, wisecracking on-screen personas to portray Matt as a mature young man with ambitions both inside and outside of his job. Matt longs to be assigned to a more glamorous position and is hopeful that when his 12 month tour in South Africa is up, a more exciting post awaits him in Paris. It doesn’t hurt that a Paris post will also allow him to be closer to his girlfriend when she returns to Europe in the near future. But his boss David Barlow (Brendan Gleason) isn’t as optimistic.
As his frustrations at the lack of mobility grows, Matt soon finds his quiet world torn asunder by the arrival of Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington). Frost is a former agent who went rogue and is considered an extremely dangerous and high-profile target. Having eluded the CIA for years, he only draws even more suspicion when he surrenders himself to a US consulate in South Africa. The CIA knows they have to act fast to determine what Frost knows, and quickly whisk him away to a safe house for intense interrogation. But the CIA aren’t the only ones who want to know Tobin’s secrets.
Although Matt is highly trained for his job running the safe house, he is very green when it comes to the reality of having to defend his domain against a surprise attack which leaves Tobin and Matt as the only survivors. Forced to flee and with nowhere to turn, Frost tries to convince Matt that they have been set up because someone in the agency does not want Frost to talk. At first skeptical, Matt is forced to step outside of his comfort zones and confront a deadly array of assassins as well as the threat posed by Frost himself and the unseen elements working against them. In a frantic race, Matt must keep Frost and himself alive as they attempt to reach safety and get to the truth behind the deadly game in which they’ve been cast.
Washington and Reynolds worked very well together and had a very natural, unforced chemistry. It was very nice to see Reynolds take on a grittier and more intense role than we have seen from him previously. Washington is a true artist at playing taciturn and wiley, and no one else can portray the pain and shock of being shot as subtly or as convincingly as Washington with just a simple change of expression.
That being said, the film had a number of issues. First and foremost, plot holes that you could drive a truck through and gaps in logic that really require the audience to take some serious leaps of faith. While there was some intense action, it was difficult to appreciate when it looked like the camera was being kicked around the floor during fight scenes, giving the film a very jerky quality. The film also suffered from some pacing issues with parts of the movie dragging as it worked toward an extremely predictable conclusion, one that I figured out very early into the film. There is some fine supporting work in the movie, particularly that of Gleeson and Arnezeder, as well as Ruben Blades as an old cohort of Frost’s, but it is not enough to help the film live up to its intriguing premise.
In the new action thriller “Safe House”, Reynolds eschews his typical charming, cocky, wisecracking on-screen personas to portray Matt as a mature young man with ambitions both inside and outside of his job. Matt longs to be assigned to a more glamorous position and is hopeful that when his 12 month tour in South Africa is up, a more exciting post awaits him in Paris. It doesn’t hurt that a Paris post will also allow him to be closer to his girlfriend when she returns to Europe in the near future. But his boss David Barlow (Brendan Gleason) isn’t as optimistic.
As his frustrations at the lack of mobility grows, Matt soon finds his quiet world torn asunder by the arrival of Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington). Frost is a former agent who went rogue and is considered an extremely dangerous and high-profile target. Having eluded the CIA for years, he only draws even more suspicion when he surrenders himself to a US consulate in South Africa. The CIA knows they have to act fast to determine what Frost knows, and quickly whisk him away to a safe house for intense interrogation. But the CIA aren’t the only ones who want to know Tobin’s secrets.
Although Matt is highly trained for his job running the safe house, he is very green when it comes to the reality of having to defend his domain against a surprise attack which leaves Tobin and Matt as the only survivors. Forced to flee and with nowhere to turn, Frost tries to convince Matt that they have been set up because someone in the agency does not want Frost to talk. At first skeptical, Matt is forced to step outside of his comfort zones and confront a deadly array of assassins as well as the threat posed by Frost himself and the unseen elements working against them. In a frantic race, Matt must keep Frost and himself alive as they attempt to reach safety and get to the truth behind the deadly game in which they’ve been cast.
Washington and Reynolds worked very well together and had a very natural, unforced chemistry. It was very nice to see Reynolds take on a grittier and more intense role than we have seen from him previously. Washington is a true artist at playing taciturn and wiley, and no one else can portray the pain and shock of being shot as subtly or as convincingly as Washington with just a simple change of expression.
That being said, the film had a number of issues. First and foremost, plot holes that you could drive a truck through and gaps in logic that really require the audience to take some serious leaps of faith. While there was some intense action, it was difficult to appreciate when it looked like the camera was being kicked around the floor during fight scenes, giving the film a very jerky quality. The film also suffered from some pacing issues with parts of the movie dragging as it worked toward an extremely predictable conclusion, one that I figured out very early into the film. There is some fine supporting work in the movie, particularly that of Gleeson and Arnezeder, as well as Ruben Blades as an old cohort of Frost’s, but it is not enough to help the film live up to its intriguing premise.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious 9 (2021) in Movies
Jun 24, 2021
Ridiculous storyline (1 more)
Improbable action
Magnetic bulls**t that will no doubt attract Fast-fans
Positives:
- Glossy locations, fast cars and beautiful women: the usual Fast stuff.
- When the stunts are "real", they are good and exciting. But it's often difficult to tell when there's been a 'computer-assist'.
Negatives:
- I complained in my review for "The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard" about it having a childish and ludicrous plot. This movie makes that look like bl***y Shakespeare! There's an attempt to add a smidgen of family tension into the mix, based on Dom's childhood trauma. But aside from that element, the 'story' (I use the term in its loosest possible sense) bounces (without any rational logic most of the time) from ludicrous situation to ludicrous situation without pause. Most of these are linked by Ramsey (the very British Nathalie Emmanuel) stating a random fact such as "Well, now he's going to need to launch a satellite". And off we go again. (That particular crazy story arc even sees them 'doing a Musk' and flying a car into space: I kid you not!)
- It's not even the 'big stuff' that's unbelievable. Everywhere you look, there are inconsistencies and things that don't make sense.
-- Tej (played by Ludicris - an appropriate name here) takes dodging a brigade worth of machine gun bullets to nonsensical limits.
-- Generally, the cast gets blasted, dropped, crashed, burned, and otherwise put through more fatal situations than you can imagine, only to walk out without a scratch.
-- And if you can show me a single delivery lorry in Edinburgh that has an automatic gearbox, I'll be amazed!
- At one point, Roman (Tyrese Gibson) mutters some line about "Trusting in the physics and the numbers". Well, let me tell you, it's like no physics that I studied on this planet. A lot of the set pieces involve huge magnets attached to trucks and cars. Now - correct me if I'm wrong - but if you turn a massive magnet on in a truck then as well as ripping the car you are chasing through the adjacent building (as if), you will also force the truck to be pulled into that building too. OK, perhaps not as much.... but the lorry ain't going to stay in its driving lane, I know that much! And magnets attract metal - they don't repel it!
- At 145 minutes, this is well over 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
Summary Thoughts on "F9": It's just such a formulaic and contrived piece of fluff that it makes me cross that they can spend $200,000 on a movie and not make it better. Part of this involves the lazy use of CGI to create obviously nonsensical stunts that devalue true action films. Yes, the stunt team was busy, and impressive, here - but always going for "one better" has led to extensive use of CGI. That's why I liked the 2014 'knock-off' film "Need for Speed" - - at least they did all their stunts old-school, in camera, and not in the computer.
But whatever I say here, this movie will unfortunately get its audience. At the time of writing, it's already made nearly $300K at the box office on its $200K budget. Which means there will inevitably be an F10, no doubt involving a driving battle on the planet Mars. Sigh.
By the way, before you dive for the exits to relieve your bladder (it is 145 minutes after all), there is a mid-credits scene that re-introduces an old favourite.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/f9-magnetic-bullst-that-will-no-doubt-attract-fast-fans/. Thanks).
- Glossy locations, fast cars and beautiful women: the usual Fast stuff.
- When the stunts are "real", they are good and exciting. But it's often difficult to tell when there's been a 'computer-assist'.
Negatives:
- I complained in my review for "The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard" about it having a childish and ludicrous plot. This movie makes that look like bl***y Shakespeare! There's an attempt to add a smidgen of family tension into the mix, based on Dom's childhood trauma. But aside from that element, the 'story' (I use the term in its loosest possible sense) bounces (without any rational logic most of the time) from ludicrous situation to ludicrous situation without pause. Most of these are linked by Ramsey (the very British Nathalie Emmanuel) stating a random fact such as "Well, now he's going to need to launch a satellite". And off we go again. (That particular crazy story arc even sees them 'doing a Musk' and flying a car into space: I kid you not!)
- It's not even the 'big stuff' that's unbelievable. Everywhere you look, there are inconsistencies and things that don't make sense.
-- Tej (played by Ludicris - an appropriate name here) takes dodging a brigade worth of machine gun bullets to nonsensical limits.
-- Generally, the cast gets blasted, dropped, crashed, burned, and otherwise put through more fatal situations than you can imagine, only to walk out without a scratch.
-- And if you can show me a single delivery lorry in Edinburgh that has an automatic gearbox, I'll be amazed!
- At one point, Roman (Tyrese Gibson) mutters some line about "Trusting in the physics and the numbers". Well, let me tell you, it's like no physics that I studied on this planet. A lot of the set pieces involve huge magnets attached to trucks and cars. Now - correct me if I'm wrong - but if you turn a massive magnet on in a truck then as well as ripping the car you are chasing through the adjacent building (as if), you will also force the truck to be pulled into that building too. OK, perhaps not as much.... but the lorry ain't going to stay in its driving lane, I know that much! And magnets attract metal - they don't repel it!
- At 145 minutes, this is well over 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
Summary Thoughts on "F9": It's just such a formulaic and contrived piece of fluff that it makes me cross that they can spend $200,000 on a movie and not make it better. Part of this involves the lazy use of CGI to create obviously nonsensical stunts that devalue true action films. Yes, the stunt team was busy, and impressive, here - but always going for "one better" has led to extensive use of CGI. That's why I liked the 2014 'knock-off' film "Need for Speed" - - at least they did all their stunts old-school, in camera, and not in the computer.
But whatever I say here, this movie will unfortunately get its audience. At the time of writing, it's already made nearly $300K at the box office on its $200K budget. Which means there will inevitably be an F10, no doubt involving a driving battle on the planet Mars. Sigh.
By the way, before you dive for the exits to relieve your bladder (it is 145 minutes after all), there is a mid-credits scene that re-introduces an old favourite.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/f9-magnetic-bullst-that-will-no-doubt-attract-fast-fans/. Thanks).
Hadley (567 KP) rated Jericho's Wall in Books
Sep 14, 2020
The story (1 more)
Quick read
There's a modern relatability in Jericho's Wall, Pamela Young's third novel and possible new series. Set in the future of a government controlled world, where everyone is told what job they can have, how many children they're allowed to have, and where they're allowed to live, Jericho's Wall, as the title suggests, is run by a Lord Jericho Baal. The world now contains android beings known as Monitors who listen and watch everyone to keep an uprising from happening while laser-armed drones keep an eye on everything else.
Our main character Joshlynn, who's going on 16, is preparing to take her Forever Test, which tells her what her permanent profession will be the rest of her life. Everyone has to take this test in this world, and they have no say in what their profession will be, but to Joshlynn's surprise, she gets to become a doctor, something she secretly wanted to do for a living. While receiving this great news, Joshlynn also gets bad news about her mother, someone who has been sick for awhile, collapsed in the fields while working and was taken away by the Removers. These androids (maybe even people - - - it's never specified in the book) take people away when they are no longer of use to the community and kill them, and this is what happened to Joshlynn's mother. At first, Joshlynn is affected by this, but nearing the second day later, it seems as if she just forgets about it. Joshlynn moves on with her life that very night, being taken from a rundown apartment to an uptown apartment by Monitors, where hospital staff are housed- - - this apartment compared to her former one is like moving from living in your car to a fully furnished house.
She begins to intern with a cranky nurse named Magda, learning about medications and herbal remedies that the hospital uses. She also begins to work alongside a doctor named 'Cat' McBride, a nice and likable character, who shows her some of the patients, but memorably, the nursery. This is one of the most emotional parts of the story because, not only are parents not allowed to raise their own children (which they can only have one), but if the child is born with a defect, the doctors are ordered to let the baby starve to-death. Readers learn that the logic of Lord Baal is that a child with a defect is just that and of no use to the community.
But the upside of Joshlynn working at the hospital is that she meets a couple of people who become close friends of her's: Suz, a young woman who has been working at the hospital for nearly two years, and Grif, a trouble-making patient that is staying at the hospital for the time being. Later, Joshlynn finds out that the two are planning to make an escape to the 'wilderness,' which is the wooded areas surrounding the communities that are forbidden to enter by none other than Lord Baal.
There's not much more I can say about Jericho's Wall without giving away major points of the story. It was a very enjoyable quick read that I didn't want to put down, but that didn't make it flawless; like most books, there were inconsistencies here and there, but also there were some things that just didn't make sense. I don't think casual readers will notice these things without really looking for them. I, personally, just don't like inconsistencies in the stories I read.
I think young readers who enjoyed the Maze Runner will like Jericho's Wall.
Our main character Joshlynn, who's going on 16, is preparing to take her Forever Test, which tells her what her permanent profession will be the rest of her life. Everyone has to take this test in this world, and they have no say in what their profession will be, but to Joshlynn's surprise, she gets to become a doctor, something she secretly wanted to do for a living. While receiving this great news, Joshlynn also gets bad news about her mother, someone who has been sick for awhile, collapsed in the fields while working and was taken away by the Removers. These androids (maybe even people - - - it's never specified in the book) take people away when they are no longer of use to the community and kill them, and this is what happened to Joshlynn's mother. At first, Joshlynn is affected by this, but nearing the second day later, it seems as if she just forgets about it. Joshlynn moves on with her life that very night, being taken from a rundown apartment to an uptown apartment by Monitors, where hospital staff are housed- - - this apartment compared to her former one is like moving from living in your car to a fully furnished house.
She begins to intern with a cranky nurse named Magda, learning about medications and herbal remedies that the hospital uses. She also begins to work alongside a doctor named 'Cat' McBride, a nice and likable character, who shows her some of the patients, but memorably, the nursery. This is one of the most emotional parts of the story because, not only are parents not allowed to raise their own children (which they can only have one), but if the child is born with a defect, the doctors are ordered to let the baby starve to-death. Readers learn that the logic of Lord Baal is that a child with a defect is just that and of no use to the community.
But the upside of Joshlynn working at the hospital is that she meets a couple of people who become close friends of her's: Suz, a young woman who has been working at the hospital for nearly two years, and Grif, a trouble-making patient that is staying at the hospital for the time being. Later, Joshlynn finds out that the two are planning to make an escape to the 'wilderness,' which is the wooded areas surrounding the communities that are forbidden to enter by none other than Lord Baal.
There's not much more I can say about Jericho's Wall without giving away major points of the story. It was a very enjoyable quick read that I didn't want to put down, but that didn't make it flawless; like most books, there were inconsistencies here and there, but also there were some things that just didn't make sense. I don't think casual readers will notice these things without really looking for them. I, personally, just don't like inconsistencies in the stories I read.
I think young readers who enjoyed the Maze Runner will like Jericho's Wall.