Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Singapore Bling.
I’ve been catching up on films that I missed at the cinema during 2018. And this is one of the ones I most wanted to see but missed due to work commitments.
The Plot.
Rachel (Constance Wu) and Nick (Henry Golding) are young New Yorker professionals in love: Rachel is a successful economics professor and Nick… well, I’m not sure we ever find out what Nick ever does for a job, but his dress and confidence imply he’s doing well. Nick has an announcement: that his best friend Colin (Chris Pang) is getting married in Singapore and he invites Rachel to join him and meet his parents.
The trip discloses something previously hidden to Rachel: that Nick is actually heir to one of the richest families in Singapore. Indeed, as they got their money from property, the family effectively BUILT Singapore! But once in Singapore, life becomes hard for Rachel. She has to deal with the “not good enough for my Nick” disapproval of Nick’s family (led by Nick’s mother, the imperious Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh). Not only that, but thanks to Nick’s eligible-batchelor status and the pervasive nature of social media, everyone in Singapore knows about Nick and Rachel. As such, many of the ‘hens’ of Colin’s fiancee Araminta have it in for Rachel. (Araminta is played by Sonoya Mizuno, so memorable in “Ex Machina“).
Layers of rich characters.
This is not your average rom-com. Because here there’s a depth of characters within Nick’s broader family to entertain, each with their own set of quirks and issues. The dynamic of the family matriarch, grandmother (Lisa Lu), with the rest of the family is also fascinating; Friend or foe for Rachel? – it’s often difficult to tell.
Also entertaining is the introduction of Rachel’s old college room-mate Peil Lin Goh (a superbly over-the-top bonkers performance by Awkwafina) and her ‘nouveau-riche’ family. Her father (Ken Jeong) is simply hilarious in a bat-shit crazy sort of way.
But it’s the two engaging leads that impress most, particularly Henry Golding. Prior to this – his debut movie role – he was a Malaysian TV travel reporter! (He of course followed this performance up a month later with his equally impressive role as Blake Lively’s husband in “A Simple Favour“).
As sponsored by the Singapore tourist board.
Much of the action could be lifted from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, “Meet the Parents” or “Mean Girls”. But it’s all given a refreshing asian facelift with its Singapore setting.
Singapore is one of my favourite cities: safe, clean and vibrant and with drop-dead gorgeous architecture. And I actually saw this movie while flying back out of Singapore itself. As such, I reflected on just what a great promotional flick for the tourist industry it was. From the wedding party at the Gardens by the Bay to the utterly jaw-dropping infinity pool at the “ship-hotel” (the Marina Bay Sands hotel, featured through a stunning fireworks-infused drone shot), all convey the excitement of the place.
A fun feel-good classic.
What’s impressive about the sharp writing is that this is the movie screenplay debut for co-writers Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim. It’s a movie that makes you occasionally sit up and go ‘wow’. As an example, there’s a quirky ‘social media tsunami’ scene in the first 10 minutes. But the movie then builds with character-development stories that, while not particularly novel, are engagingly well-written and well delivered by the enthusiastic ensemble cast.
The director is John M Chu, whose less-than-stellar CV includes “GI: Joe” and “Now You See Me 2”, but here delivers a breathless momentum that lasts to the final scene.
The perfect wife and the perfect husband? Michael (Pierre Png), the boy who married well (which feels a plot borrowed from “Lost”), with the lovely Astrid (Gemma Chan). (Source: Warner Brothers).
And it’s that denouement that got to me. I don’t tend to get slushy about these sort of romantic comedies. But there’s a “reveal” in the final few minutes of the movie that completely surprised me (even though it should have been obvious!). It actually made me well-up!
It didn’t make a big dent in the awards nominations. But for fans of quirky romantic comedies it’s a recommended watch. It’s really difficult to dislike!
The Plot.
Rachel (Constance Wu) and Nick (Henry Golding) are young New Yorker professionals in love: Rachel is a successful economics professor and Nick… well, I’m not sure we ever find out what Nick ever does for a job, but his dress and confidence imply he’s doing well. Nick has an announcement: that his best friend Colin (Chris Pang) is getting married in Singapore and he invites Rachel to join him and meet his parents.
The trip discloses something previously hidden to Rachel: that Nick is actually heir to one of the richest families in Singapore. Indeed, as they got their money from property, the family effectively BUILT Singapore! But once in Singapore, life becomes hard for Rachel. She has to deal with the “not good enough for my Nick” disapproval of Nick’s family (led by Nick’s mother, the imperious Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh). Not only that, but thanks to Nick’s eligible-batchelor status and the pervasive nature of social media, everyone in Singapore knows about Nick and Rachel. As such, many of the ‘hens’ of Colin’s fiancee Araminta have it in for Rachel. (Araminta is played by Sonoya Mizuno, so memorable in “Ex Machina“).
Layers of rich characters.
This is not your average rom-com. Because here there’s a depth of characters within Nick’s broader family to entertain, each with their own set of quirks and issues. The dynamic of the family matriarch, grandmother (Lisa Lu), with the rest of the family is also fascinating; Friend or foe for Rachel? – it’s often difficult to tell.
Also entertaining is the introduction of Rachel’s old college room-mate Peil Lin Goh (a superbly over-the-top bonkers performance by Awkwafina) and her ‘nouveau-riche’ family. Her father (Ken Jeong) is simply hilarious in a bat-shit crazy sort of way.
But it’s the two engaging leads that impress most, particularly Henry Golding. Prior to this – his debut movie role – he was a Malaysian TV travel reporter! (He of course followed this performance up a month later with his equally impressive role as Blake Lively’s husband in “A Simple Favour“).
As sponsored by the Singapore tourist board.
Much of the action could be lifted from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, “Meet the Parents” or “Mean Girls”. But it’s all given a refreshing asian facelift with its Singapore setting.
Singapore is one of my favourite cities: safe, clean and vibrant and with drop-dead gorgeous architecture. And I actually saw this movie while flying back out of Singapore itself. As such, I reflected on just what a great promotional flick for the tourist industry it was. From the wedding party at the Gardens by the Bay to the utterly jaw-dropping infinity pool at the “ship-hotel” (the Marina Bay Sands hotel, featured through a stunning fireworks-infused drone shot), all convey the excitement of the place.
A fun feel-good classic.
What’s impressive about the sharp writing is that this is the movie screenplay debut for co-writers Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim. It’s a movie that makes you occasionally sit up and go ‘wow’. As an example, there’s a quirky ‘social media tsunami’ scene in the first 10 minutes. But the movie then builds with character-development stories that, while not particularly novel, are engagingly well-written and well delivered by the enthusiastic ensemble cast.
The director is John M Chu, whose less-than-stellar CV includes “GI: Joe” and “Now You See Me 2”, but here delivers a breathless momentum that lasts to the final scene.
The perfect wife and the perfect husband? Michael (Pierre Png), the boy who married well (which feels a plot borrowed from “Lost”), with the lovely Astrid (Gemma Chan). (Source: Warner Brothers).
And it’s that denouement that got to me. I don’t tend to get slushy about these sort of romantic comedies. But there’s a “reveal” in the final few minutes of the movie that completely surprised me (even though it should have been obvious!). It actually made me well-up!
It didn’t make a big dent in the awards nominations. But for fans of quirky romantic comedies it’s a recommended watch. It’s really difficult to dislike!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Night in Soho (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Edgar Wright’s Haunting Love Letter to the Swinging Sixties.
A young 21st-century teen walks in her nightclothes down a darkened alley emerging into a bustling 60’s Soho street across from a theatre showing “Thunderball”. She enters the Cafe de Paris with a reflection mimicking her actions but showing a very different girl. So it was that the trailer for Edgar Wright’s “Last Night in Soho” hit earlier this year.
The trailer grabbed me by the gut and firmly cemented it as a “must see” in my movie-watching schedule. Frustratingly, Covid got in my way. But now free of the wretched virus, this had just HAD be my first outing.
Plot Summary:
Eloise (Thomasin McKenzie) is a Cornish teen whose fashion and music tastes are firmly rooted in the ’60s. She is also blessed (or plagued) with having visions of people who’ve passed, including her dead mother.
Travelling to a London fashion school, Eloise is a lost soul in a raucous world. But at night, she is mystically transported back to the swinging 60’s into the body of aspiring singer Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy). Sandie is under the thrall of ‘manager’ Jack (Matt Smith), and Eloise witnesses events that she needs to tell people about. But who would possibly believe such a tale?
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Thomasin McKenzie, Anya Taylor-Joy, Matt Smith, Terence Stamp, Diana Rigg.
Directed by: Edgar Wright.
Written by: Krysty Wilson-Cairns (based on a story by Edgar Wright).
“Last Night in Soho” Review: Positives:
This is SUCH a tour de force of filmmaking. Honestly, there were moments in here, particularly in the first half of the movie, where I was beaming from ear to ear at the audacity of it all. That ‘time travel’ reveal is even better in ‘the flesh’ than it was in the trailer, enhanced by the vibrant cinematography of Chung-hoon Chung.
Thomasin McKensie again impressed me immensely. She was of course the ‘girl in the attic’ from “Jojo Rabbit” and the best thing in the lacklustre M. Night Shyamalan feature “Old“. Anya Taylor-Joy is as spectacular as you would expect and Matt Smith also delivers, although I wasn’t completely convinced by Smith’s cockney accent. And what a wonderful thing to watch veteran actors Terence Stamp and Diana RIgg strut their stuff on the big screen. (This was Rigg’s final screen performance, and the film is dedicated to her: “For Diana”. RIP Ms Rigg.)
The combination of ‘in camera’ and special effects here are gob-smackingly effective. Some of the ‘mirror’ effects involving Eloise, Sandie and Jack in the club are gleeful. And I’m not sure how they were all done. And a dance sequence where Eloise switches to Sandie and back again is just so clever.
The Production Design is just brilliant. It oozes a combination of 60’s style and sleaze. Surely an Oscar nomination is due here.
As with other Edgar Wright movies (like “Baby Driver“) the choice of music is superb. The score is by Oscar winning composer Steven Price, but you can be sure that Wright was heavily involved in the track selections. These prominently feature a Cilla Black track – heralded by 15 string beats of total perfection – that is in my top 5 songs from the 60’s. And Anya Taylor-Joy’s haunting version of “Downtown” is just superb.
Acting Royalty…. Diana Rigg in her last role, and….
Negatives:
The second half of the film just doesn’t *quite* live up to the promise of the first half (which was running as a clear 5*s).
While the inevitable twist in the tale is clever (and unexpected), I thought it was rather clumsily introduced. (I can’t go into details without introducing spoilers, but an envelope is involved). Something more subliminal would have been my preference; something that you would have had to watch the film again to catch.
A stunning starring role for Thomasin McKenzie. Just wonderful.
Summary Thoughts on “Last Night in Soho”
I loved this one. It lived up to my expectations, and came close to “classic status”. I need to give this careful consideration as to where this sits in my “Top 10 Films of the Year”, but it is undoubtedly up there in the list.
Highly recommended, if you are content to stomach some violent (and quite disturbing) horror imagery.
The trailer grabbed me by the gut and firmly cemented it as a “must see” in my movie-watching schedule. Frustratingly, Covid got in my way. But now free of the wretched virus, this had just HAD be my first outing.
Plot Summary:
Eloise (Thomasin McKenzie) is a Cornish teen whose fashion and music tastes are firmly rooted in the ’60s. She is also blessed (or plagued) with having visions of people who’ve passed, including her dead mother.
Travelling to a London fashion school, Eloise is a lost soul in a raucous world. But at night, she is mystically transported back to the swinging 60’s into the body of aspiring singer Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy). Sandie is under the thrall of ‘manager’ Jack (Matt Smith), and Eloise witnesses events that she needs to tell people about. But who would possibly believe such a tale?
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Thomasin McKenzie, Anya Taylor-Joy, Matt Smith, Terence Stamp, Diana Rigg.
Directed by: Edgar Wright.
Written by: Krysty Wilson-Cairns (based on a story by Edgar Wright).
“Last Night in Soho” Review: Positives:
This is SUCH a tour de force of filmmaking. Honestly, there were moments in here, particularly in the first half of the movie, where I was beaming from ear to ear at the audacity of it all. That ‘time travel’ reveal is even better in ‘the flesh’ than it was in the trailer, enhanced by the vibrant cinematography of Chung-hoon Chung.
Thomasin McKensie again impressed me immensely. She was of course the ‘girl in the attic’ from “Jojo Rabbit” and the best thing in the lacklustre M. Night Shyamalan feature “Old“. Anya Taylor-Joy is as spectacular as you would expect and Matt Smith also delivers, although I wasn’t completely convinced by Smith’s cockney accent. And what a wonderful thing to watch veteran actors Terence Stamp and Diana RIgg strut their stuff on the big screen. (This was Rigg’s final screen performance, and the film is dedicated to her: “For Diana”. RIP Ms Rigg.)
The combination of ‘in camera’ and special effects here are gob-smackingly effective. Some of the ‘mirror’ effects involving Eloise, Sandie and Jack in the club are gleeful. And I’m not sure how they were all done. And a dance sequence where Eloise switches to Sandie and back again is just so clever.
The Production Design is just brilliant. It oozes a combination of 60’s style and sleaze. Surely an Oscar nomination is due here.
As with other Edgar Wright movies (like “Baby Driver“) the choice of music is superb. The score is by Oscar winning composer Steven Price, but you can be sure that Wright was heavily involved in the track selections. These prominently feature a Cilla Black track – heralded by 15 string beats of total perfection – that is in my top 5 songs from the 60’s. And Anya Taylor-Joy’s haunting version of “Downtown” is just superb.
Acting Royalty…. Diana Rigg in her last role, and….
Negatives:
The second half of the film just doesn’t *quite* live up to the promise of the first half (which was running as a clear 5*s).
While the inevitable twist in the tale is clever (and unexpected), I thought it was rather clumsily introduced. (I can’t go into details without introducing spoilers, but an envelope is involved). Something more subliminal would have been my preference; something that you would have had to watch the film again to catch.
A stunning starring role for Thomasin McKenzie. Just wonderful.
Summary Thoughts on “Last Night in Soho”
I loved this one. It lived up to my expectations, and came close to “classic status”. I need to give this careful consideration as to where this sits in my “Top 10 Films of the Year”, but it is undoubtedly up there in the list.
Highly recommended, if you are content to stomach some violent (and quite disturbing) horror imagery.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An ambitious but flawed finale
M. Night Shyamalan is back behind the camera! Quick, run! Joking aside, Shyamalan’s career is as convoluted as his signature third-act twists. Starting off with the fabulous The Sixth Sense and then almost derailing his career with catastrophic failures like The Happening, After Earth and dare I mention it, The Last Airbender, it appeared we had all but lost that once promising directorial flair.
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Did You See Melody? in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Yikes. This was bad, really bad. This started off as a buddy read with my reading pal Nicki @ The Secret Library, but she couldnt even finish this one
and I dont blame her!
<b>Prepare yourselves for a very harsh review.</b>
First off, lets talk characters. Cara, our main character, has run away from home for a pathetically trivial reason, and not only that, has spent 1/3 of her families life savings to get away. She was an irritating, whingy character who talked to herself too much. Enough said.
Next, Tarin Fry. Biggest bitch in the world, and not in a sassy way she was just a bitch. She didnt speak her mind, she just spewed abuse at / about people.
Who next? How about Bonnie Juno. Awful name for an awful character. Another abuse spewer. In another life, Bonnies character could have been a strong female character who would have been likeable and someone to root for, but she isnt. Not in the slightest.
Then we have a whole mash of random characters who were only half relevant in my mind. Riyonna Briggs, annoyingly happy and needy. Orson (was that his name?) Priddey, whingy and weak-willed, for a cop. Heidi whatever-her-name-was, waste of ink.
As for the story, I have mixed opinions. Firstly, if you are going to put yourself through this, skip the first 30% of it. It one long description of a 5 star hotel and spa. Im not even kidding. Then the story picks up a little bit and there is some mystery to the story (finally!) but then thing get weird and we begin reading tedious interviews surrounding Melodys case rather than present day stuff. Towards the end, things just got really ridiculous and unbelievable that I began skim reading the story, just to get the important twisty bits.
Although the book began badly, things did start picking up nearer the middle of the book, and for a while I thought I was actually enjoying it. The story of Melody was an interesting one and I liked following the theories on who killed her. But then, as I said before, things got ridiculous.
For example, the people discussing the case, and trying to solve the thing, consisted of Bonnie Juno, her assistant, 2 police detectives, Tarin Fry and the hotel manager. AS IF the police would just let civilians sit around the table with them to discuss a case, and more to the point, let a random member of the public (Tarin Fry) basically run the entire show by bossing everyone around. This then happens again at the end where things are coming together and really important police stuff is happening, even the FBI are involved at this point. They just let these random people sit in on the conversation like its not a hugely important case to find a girl whos been believed dead for years and years.
The twist(s?) in this story were dulled down by the time they came around. I just wasnt interested anymore and they didnt do enough to bring me back to liking the book. I had guessed a couple of the reveals, but not all of them, but even that didnt entertain me.
Writing? Well, it was nothing special. Not bad, but not great. At some points it felt like Hannah was talking down to us, repeating very simple things like the reader didnt get it the first time and I mean very simple things... like the door was unlocked. That meant he had forgot to lock the door before he left. Yeah, no shit.
This book was a huge fail for me and I wish I had given it up early on like Nicki did!
You might be thinking but why give it 2 stars if you hated it so much? why not one star? well, I dont really get 1 star book reviews if you hated it that much would you not just have put it down? I didnt put this one down so something about it kept me going but that being said, my two star rating is practically a one star rating.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Hodder & Stoughton for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
<b>Prepare yourselves for a very harsh review.</b>
First off, lets talk characters. Cara, our main character, has run away from home for a pathetically trivial reason, and not only that, has spent 1/3 of her families life savings to get away. She was an irritating, whingy character who talked to herself too much. Enough said.
Next, Tarin Fry. Biggest bitch in the world, and not in a sassy way she was just a bitch. She didnt speak her mind, she just spewed abuse at / about people.
Who next? How about Bonnie Juno. Awful name for an awful character. Another abuse spewer. In another life, Bonnies character could have been a strong female character who would have been likeable and someone to root for, but she isnt. Not in the slightest.
Then we have a whole mash of random characters who were only half relevant in my mind. Riyonna Briggs, annoyingly happy and needy. Orson (was that his name?) Priddey, whingy and weak-willed, for a cop. Heidi whatever-her-name-was, waste of ink.
As for the story, I have mixed opinions. Firstly, if you are going to put yourself through this, skip the first 30% of it. It one long description of a 5 star hotel and spa. Im not even kidding. Then the story picks up a little bit and there is some mystery to the story (finally!) but then thing get weird and we begin reading tedious interviews surrounding Melodys case rather than present day stuff. Towards the end, things just got really ridiculous and unbelievable that I began skim reading the story, just to get the important twisty bits.
Although the book began badly, things did start picking up nearer the middle of the book, and for a while I thought I was actually enjoying it. The story of Melody was an interesting one and I liked following the theories on who killed her. But then, as I said before, things got ridiculous.
For example, the people discussing the case, and trying to solve the thing, consisted of Bonnie Juno, her assistant, 2 police detectives, Tarin Fry and the hotel manager. AS IF the police would just let civilians sit around the table with them to discuss a case, and more to the point, let a random member of the public (Tarin Fry) basically run the entire show by bossing everyone around. This then happens again at the end where things are coming together and really important police stuff is happening, even the FBI are involved at this point. They just let these random people sit in on the conversation like its not a hugely important case to find a girl whos been believed dead for years and years.
The twist(s?) in this story were dulled down by the time they came around. I just wasnt interested anymore and they didnt do enough to bring me back to liking the book. I had guessed a couple of the reveals, but not all of them, but even that didnt entertain me.
Writing? Well, it was nothing special. Not bad, but not great. At some points it felt like Hannah was talking down to us, repeating very simple things like the reader didnt get it the first time and I mean very simple things... like the door was unlocked. That meant he had forgot to lock the door before he left. Yeah, no shit.
This book was a huge fail for me and I wish I had given it up early on like Nicki did!
You might be thinking but why give it 2 stars if you hated it so much? why not one star? well, I dont really get 1 star book reviews if you hated it that much would you not just have put it down? I didnt put this one down so something about it kept me going but that being said, my two star rating is practically a one star rating.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and Hodder & Stoughton for giving me the opportunity to read this in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Village (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Deep within a lush meadow a thriving community is enjoying a communal dinner following the passing of a young member of the town. The smiles and laughter that emerge from those seated at the table hide that fact that the town lives in perpetual fear of an unspeakable evil.
The towns residents are haunted by creatures that are referred to as “Those we do not speak of” and are bound within the borders of their village by a long-standing set of rules. The rules consist of not having a trace of the color red anywhere within the town, and never breaking the boarders of the village as angering the creatures or venturing into their territory is sure to result in certain death.
Under the leadership of Edward Walker (William Hurt), the village has grown and a truce has been maintained with the creatures by following the rules of conduct that have been established. Walker is a happy man as his oldest daughter is marrying and his blind younger daughter Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) is becoming very close to Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix). On what should be joyous time in the community, instead becomes one of fear as mutilated animals and bizarre sightings have been found throughout the village indicating that the creatures from the woods have become annoyed and are making their displeasure with the local townsfolk known.
Lucius has provoked this situation by his challenge of the borders and has admitted that he has ventured into the woods and desires to travel to the towns that the elders speak of that lay beyond the woods. This is put off as youthful indiscretions and when Lucius agrees not to travel and his intentions to marry Ivy, things seem to be right in the world, especially to his mother Alice (Sigourney Weaver), who worried that her son would meet a bad end the same way her late husband did.
Things do not go as planned as an unforeseen accident has caused dire repercussions for the town and forces the town elders to allow travel beyond the village as not doing so can have even larger repercussions than doing so.
What should be a tight thriller instead becomes a mess as “The Village” suffers from a bad plot and terrible sequencing that eliminates much of the suspense in the film. We were asked not to reveal the surprise ending, but suffice it to say, that 6 minutes into the film, I looked at my watch, and told my friend what I thought the surprise twist would be. Low and behold, I was dead on as the film offers very little surprises.
This is a tragic shame as the concept of the film is good and the cast and performances are first rate especially Adrian Brody in a supporting performance and the amazing work of Hurt and Phoenix. Sadly it all becomes much ado about nothing as the film promises so much and yet delivers amazingly little. Writer/Director M. Night Shyamlan has created 2/3 of a great film but the pacing of the film and resolution of the key events of the story are so badly done, they make you wonder if he was asleep. Case in point, there is a key plot point that is revealed in the film that later undermines a sequence in the woods and destroys a golden opportunity of discovery and shock for the audience as what should be a tense moment with a shocking conclusion is instead watered down by information that was revealed in a flashback that never should have been shown to the audience prior to the scene.
This is such a hard film to review as I find fault with segments yet am unable to really explain my criticisms without giving away key points to the plot. I guess the best way to describe the film would be to think of it as an episode of “The Outer Limits” or “Twilight Zone”. It has a great premise, but unlike the two series, the outcome is badly done and at least for me, very easy to see coming. At least it took me 15 minutes to see the twist in “The Sixth Sense”, and allowed me to enjoy the story despite this fact. Once I figured out what twist the story would take, the film implodes as the entire premise is based upon a flimsy base that once exposed, causes the film to implode like a house of cards.
My advice, wait for the DVD.
The towns residents are haunted by creatures that are referred to as “Those we do not speak of” and are bound within the borders of their village by a long-standing set of rules. The rules consist of not having a trace of the color red anywhere within the town, and never breaking the boarders of the village as angering the creatures or venturing into their territory is sure to result in certain death.
Under the leadership of Edward Walker (William Hurt), the village has grown and a truce has been maintained with the creatures by following the rules of conduct that have been established. Walker is a happy man as his oldest daughter is marrying and his blind younger daughter Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) is becoming very close to Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix). On what should be joyous time in the community, instead becomes one of fear as mutilated animals and bizarre sightings have been found throughout the village indicating that the creatures from the woods have become annoyed and are making their displeasure with the local townsfolk known.
Lucius has provoked this situation by his challenge of the borders and has admitted that he has ventured into the woods and desires to travel to the towns that the elders speak of that lay beyond the woods. This is put off as youthful indiscretions and when Lucius agrees not to travel and his intentions to marry Ivy, things seem to be right in the world, especially to his mother Alice (Sigourney Weaver), who worried that her son would meet a bad end the same way her late husband did.
Things do not go as planned as an unforeseen accident has caused dire repercussions for the town and forces the town elders to allow travel beyond the village as not doing so can have even larger repercussions than doing so.
What should be a tight thriller instead becomes a mess as “The Village” suffers from a bad plot and terrible sequencing that eliminates much of the suspense in the film. We were asked not to reveal the surprise ending, but suffice it to say, that 6 minutes into the film, I looked at my watch, and told my friend what I thought the surprise twist would be. Low and behold, I was dead on as the film offers very little surprises.
This is a tragic shame as the concept of the film is good and the cast and performances are first rate especially Adrian Brody in a supporting performance and the amazing work of Hurt and Phoenix. Sadly it all becomes much ado about nothing as the film promises so much and yet delivers amazingly little. Writer/Director M. Night Shyamlan has created 2/3 of a great film but the pacing of the film and resolution of the key events of the story are so badly done, they make you wonder if he was asleep. Case in point, there is a key plot point that is revealed in the film that later undermines a sequence in the woods and destroys a golden opportunity of discovery and shock for the audience as what should be a tense moment with a shocking conclusion is instead watered down by information that was revealed in a flashback that never should have been shown to the audience prior to the scene.
This is such a hard film to review as I find fault with segments yet am unable to really explain my criticisms without giving away key points to the plot. I guess the best way to describe the film would be to think of it as an episode of “The Outer Limits” or “Twilight Zone”. It has a great premise, but unlike the two series, the outcome is badly done and at least for me, very easy to see coming. At least it took me 15 minutes to see the twist in “The Sixth Sense”, and allowed me to enjoy the story despite this fact. Once I figured out what twist the story would take, the film implodes as the entire premise is based upon a flimsy base that once exposed, causes the film to implode like a house of cards.
My advice, wait for the DVD.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Warm Bodies (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Considering how many movies are typically released in the first quarter of the year, Warm Bodies is by far the best movie of 2013 so far. “Zombie Love Story” was the first term that came to my mind when I was first made aware of the movie, but it is so much more than that. Part “Romeo and Juliet”, part “Zombieland”, this adaptation of Isaac Marion’s critically acclaimed young adult novel is a humorous and surprisingly fresh zombie movie that gives its own unique look at love.
R, the zombie in our “Romeo” role, is your typical walker (excuse me while I borrow terms from another hit zombie medium). He moves around without purpose, mostly spending his days at the airport. He carries “conversations” with another zombie, M, and his internal monologue certainly lets the viewer know that zombies are fully aware of what they are. As a result of their condition, they no longer have control over what they do. Nor does R try to make excuses for it; they are what they are. This is demonstrated when he and a horde of walkers attack a group of humans. In this group is Julie, who as I am sure you have guessed is our “Juliet”. R immediately falls for her and is determined to have her reciprocate the feelings. This might prove to be difficult, considering that humans and zombies at their core just want to kill each other. It is this feeling, this emotion, that humans thought zombies incapable of, that begins to change R, and other zombies around him.
After the attack, R takes Julie back to his… er, safe haven comes to mind, but it’s really just an abandoned airplane sitting on a tarmac filled with wacky items that R has collected in the time since he became a zombie. Writer/Director Jonathan Levine, who adapted Marion’s novel, has managed to create very smart, witty dialogue, but in a cute way as he did with The Wackness (which Levine also wrote). The sincerity of the dialogue in the movie keeps you interested in a growing relationship that’s way, way outside the box. There is plenty of violence in the movie too, as we see R attack a human, bite their arm, and hide their brains away for a snack later. Speaking of brain, the film explains that when a zombie eats a human’s brains, they remember our memories. This is kind of important.
Despite being a very different romantic comedy, the film also delivers a healthy horror flick. Zombies are not the only thing that is a result of the zombie outbreak. In this post-apocalyptic world there is another threat: bonies. Bonies are zombies that are so far gone they do not care anymore. They’ve given up, have peeled off their skin and attack anything with beating hearts. R says it best in the film. “Zombies do this also, but at least they are conflicted about eating it.” Even though the bonies are fully CG creations, and utterly obviously so, Levine has done it in such a way that you only get quick glances, which is a nice way to keep the PG-13 rating considering all of the blood flowing in the film.
Nicholas Hoult is fantastic in the lead role of R, and he finds a way to turn on the creepy just as easily as he can turn the funny on. Everything our “Romeo” character is supposed to be is remarkably portrayed by Hoult. Of course it helps to have a great supporting cast, Teresa Palmer strong and sweet as Julie and John Malkovich as her father who is the hardened general who is leading the human survivors.
Warm Bodies is a great zombie movie, with an excellent sound track to set the mood throughout the film. But it’s more than that. It is also a charming story of unconventional love. Telling the story from R’s point of view gives it a very fresh feel, but it’s the thought and care that Levine and the cast members put into it that make it such a superb film. Warm Bodies is a love story between woman and monster, and the screenwriting and execution delivers a charm that cannot be denied. Warm Bodies is funny, but it’s also sweet, a bit dark at times, and highly original. All of this combined makes it the first must-see film of 2013.
R, the zombie in our “Romeo” role, is your typical walker (excuse me while I borrow terms from another hit zombie medium). He moves around without purpose, mostly spending his days at the airport. He carries “conversations” with another zombie, M, and his internal monologue certainly lets the viewer know that zombies are fully aware of what they are. As a result of their condition, they no longer have control over what they do. Nor does R try to make excuses for it; they are what they are. This is demonstrated when he and a horde of walkers attack a group of humans. In this group is Julie, who as I am sure you have guessed is our “Juliet”. R immediately falls for her and is determined to have her reciprocate the feelings. This might prove to be difficult, considering that humans and zombies at their core just want to kill each other. It is this feeling, this emotion, that humans thought zombies incapable of, that begins to change R, and other zombies around him.
After the attack, R takes Julie back to his… er, safe haven comes to mind, but it’s really just an abandoned airplane sitting on a tarmac filled with wacky items that R has collected in the time since he became a zombie. Writer/Director Jonathan Levine, who adapted Marion’s novel, has managed to create very smart, witty dialogue, but in a cute way as he did with The Wackness (which Levine also wrote). The sincerity of the dialogue in the movie keeps you interested in a growing relationship that’s way, way outside the box. There is plenty of violence in the movie too, as we see R attack a human, bite their arm, and hide their brains away for a snack later. Speaking of brain, the film explains that when a zombie eats a human’s brains, they remember our memories. This is kind of important.
Despite being a very different romantic comedy, the film also delivers a healthy horror flick. Zombies are not the only thing that is a result of the zombie outbreak. In this post-apocalyptic world there is another threat: bonies. Bonies are zombies that are so far gone they do not care anymore. They’ve given up, have peeled off their skin and attack anything with beating hearts. R says it best in the film. “Zombies do this also, but at least they are conflicted about eating it.” Even though the bonies are fully CG creations, and utterly obviously so, Levine has done it in such a way that you only get quick glances, which is a nice way to keep the PG-13 rating considering all of the blood flowing in the film.
Nicholas Hoult is fantastic in the lead role of R, and he finds a way to turn on the creepy just as easily as he can turn the funny on. Everything our “Romeo” character is supposed to be is remarkably portrayed by Hoult. Of course it helps to have a great supporting cast, Teresa Palmer strong and sweet as Julie and John Malkovich as her father who is the hardened general who is leading the human survivors.
Warm Bodies is a great zombie movie, with an excellent sound track to set the mood throughout the film. But it’s more than that. It is also a charming story of unconventional love. Telling the story from R’s point of view gives it a very fresh feel, but it’s the thought and care that Levine and the cast members put into it that make it such a superb film. Warm Bodies is a love story between woman and monster, and the screenwriting and execution delivers a charm that cannot be denied. Warm Bodies is funny, but it’s also sweet, a bit dark at times, and highly original. All of this combined makes it the first must-see film of 2013.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated After Earth (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
M Night Shyamalan is a director of two-halves. On one hand we have the man who gave us the amazing blockbusters Signs, Unbreakable and The Sixth Sense, which were met with commercial and critical success; and on the other hand we have the man who tortured the cinema-going public with abominations like The Lady in the Water, The Village and perhaps one of the worst films of all time, The Happening.
However, despite his recent offerings, the studios are allowing him to have another go, teaming up with Will Smith and his son Jaden in the sci-fi thriller After Earth. But can it mark a return to form for the struggling director?
After Earth begins with Jaden Smith getting the audience up to speed with exactly what has happened before the film began. The human race has had to leave the planet to ensure the continuation of our species after purging all the resources Earth had to offer.
Their new home, Nova Prime is a hostile environment, not unlike Mars in appearance with its rugged, red rocks and sweeping planes of space sand. After years of peace, an alien race intends to conquer their new home and enslave mankind with their secret weapons, the Ursas. These predatory beasts are technically blind, but sense fear and because of their grotesque appearance, it is easy to see why they can kill so quickly. The only way to survive an Ursa attack is to ‘ghost’, to not secrete the fear they need to ‘see’ you.
Jaden Smith plays Kitai, a young cadet who is on a training regime to become a ranger like his father Cypher (Will Smith). It’s fair to say they have a fraught relationship which is in part to Cypher being away for long periods of time defending Nova Prime, and partly because of the death of his daughter at the hands of an Ursa; something which Kitai blames himself for.
In an attempt to bond the pair together, their mother Faia, played briefly by Sophie Okonedo, convinces Cypher to take Kitai on his last voyage before retirement. On their journey their ship is severely damaged by an asteroid field and subsequently crashes on an inhospitable planet; no prizes for guessing where.
After discovering that his father has two badly broken legs, Kitai realises, with a little help from his dad, that he must travel 100km through Earth’s once pleasant land to retrieve an emergency signalling beacon – otherwise, they will die.
What ensues is a formulaic father, son bonding story mixed in with some mildly entertaining action pieces which try and get the heart racing. The problem with the film as a whole is that we, as the audience, never really sense any danger. Despite Kitai being attacked by a troop of baboons, poisoned by a leech and almost eviscerated by a group of big cats, we never think anything too awful is going to happen, simply because the film would be pointless if the duo weren’t rescued in the end.
Side-lining one of Hollywood’s most loved actors with two broken legs was a brave move by Shyamalan and it is done with a small degree of success. Smith senior suffers as a result of being bed-ridden for the duration and doesn’t perform as well as some of his other recent roles; I am Legend and I, Robot being prime examples. This isn’t to say that he isn’t engaging, as he always is, but it falls well short of his best characterisations.
The major fault with After Earth is in its leading man. Jaden Smith is a good actor, but he is not good enough to carry an entire film for over 90 minutes, we see him shout, pout and look into the camera longingly, but there is little else here and that’s a shame. He lacks the charisma and the charm that has made his father such a joy to watch over the years.
Special effects are a mixed bag, in some sequences, like the sweeping shots of Nova Prime and the cities which are dotted across its landscape, the effect is very good and the 4k resolution that Shyamalan has filmed in makes everything look crisp and sharp. However, the CGI animals, especially the big cats and the Ursa alien look a little like something pre-2000 and are disappointing.
Overall, After Earth is not as bad as the reviews and its dire box-office performance would suggest, and comparing it to Battlefield Earth is downright ridiculous. It is by no means a masterpiece, but as a slice of cheesy, sentimental popcorn entertainment it succeeds and does so well. Will Smith and his son Jaden are good, but not outstanding and the special effects look rushed – but this is offset by a wonderful soundtrack and a surprisingly deep and meaningful story. It may not be the career revival that Shyamalan was hoping for, but if this is the last film he directs he can at least be content. Set your expectations low and you’ll come out pleasantly surprised.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/08/after-earth-review-2013/
However, despite his recent offerings, the studios are allowing him to have another go, teaming up with Will Smith and his son Jaden in the sci-fi thriller After Earth. But can it mark a return to form for the struggling director?
After Earth begins with Jaden Smith getting the audience up to speed with exactly what has happened before the film began. The human race has had to leave the planet to ensure the continuation of our species after purging all the resources Earth had to offer.
Their new home, Nova Prime is a hostile environment, not unlike Mars in appearance with its rugged, red rocks and sweeping planes of space sand. After years of peace, an alien race intends to conquer their new home and enslave mankind with their secret weapons, the Ursas. These predatory beasts are technically blind, but sense fear and because of their grotesque appearance, it is easy to see why they can kill so quickly. The only way to survive an Ursa attack is to ‘ghost’, to not secrete the fear they need to ‘see’ you.
Jaden Smith plays Kitai, a young cadet who is on a training regime to become a ranger like his father Cypher (Will Smith). It’s fair to say they have a fraught relationship which is in part to Cypher being away for long periods of time defending Nova Prime, and partly because of the death of his daughter at the hands of an Ursa; something which Kitai blames himself for.
In an attempt to bond the pair together, their mother Faia, played briefly by Sophie Okonedo, convinces Cypher to take Kitai on his last voyage before retirement. On their journey their ship is severely damaged by an asteroid field and subsequently crashes on an inhospitable planet; no prizes for guessing where.
After discovering that his father has two badly broken legs, Kitai realises, with a little help from his dad, that he must travel 100km through Earth’s once pleasant land to retrieve an emergency signalling beacon – otherwise, they will die.
What ensues is a formulaic father, son bonding story mixed in with some mildly entertaining action pieces which try and get the heart racing. The problem with the film as a whole is that we, as the audience, never really sense any danger. Despite Kitai being attacked by a troop of baboons, poisoned by a leech and almost eviscerated by a group of big cats, we never think anything too awful is going to happen, simply because the film would be pointless if the duo weren’t rescued in the end.
Side-lining one of Hollywood’s most loved actors with two broken legs was a brave move by Shyamalan and it is done with a small degree of success. Smith senior suffers as a result of being bed-ridden for the duration and doesn’t perform as well as some of his other recent roles; I am Legend and I, Robot being prime examples. This isn’t to say that he isn’t engaging, as he always is, but it falls well short of his best characterisations.
The major fault with After Earth is in its leading man. Jaden Smith is a good actor, but he is not good enough to carry an entire film for over 90 minutes, we see him shout, pout and look into the camera longingly, but there is little else here and that’s a shame. He lacks the charisma and the charm that has made his father such a joy to watch over the years.
Special effects are a mixed bag, in some sequences, like the sweeping shots of Nova Prime and the cities which are dotted across its landscape, the effect is very good and the 4k resolution that Shyamalan has filmed in makes everything look crisp and sharp. However, the CGI animals, especially the big cats and the Ursa alien look a little like something pre-2000 and are disappointing.
Overall, After Earth is not as bad as the reviews and its dire box-office performance would suggest, and comparing it to Battlefield Earth is downright ridiculous. It is by no means a masterpiece, but as a slice of cheesy, sentimental popcorn entertainment it succeeds and does so well. Will Smith and his son Jaden are good, but not outstanding and the special effects look rushed – but this is offset by a wonderful soundtrack and a surprisingly deep and meaningful story. It may not be the career revival that Shyamalan was hoping for, but if this is the last film he directs he can at least be content. Set your expectations low and you’ll come out pleasantly surprised.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/08/after-earth-review-2013/
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated Haunted (2013) in Movies
Jun 12, 2019
About As Scary As A Trip To Seaworld
Contains spoilers, click to show
Haunted, a film Directed by Steven M Smith is an unusual addition to anyone's 'film' collection, as instantly you question whether this is even a film to begin with, the content is very documentary based, opening with factual accounts and a history of an abandoned railway museum. All of the opening shots are filmed in documentary format and this continues throughout the film even when found footage elements are introduced.
A TV crew will film a paranormal investigation and obtain evidence that proves we are not alone. Something Evil awaits them! They will all discover the truth, that we are not alone.
The above quote is taken directly from the synopsis on the website, contestants are invited to visit a haunted railway as part of the show of which they are filming, they are all packed into a limousine and taken to the event. The whole scenes within the limo following the group around SHOULD of been filmed by a professional camera and a professional cinematographer but it looks as thou the entire film has been shot on someone's mobile phone.
Budget constraints aside, decent camera's should of been used to document the entire film from introduction to the actual paranormal investigations, rather than Sony handycam's that cost £120. The only time still camera's are used is to document an almost news style report at the start of the film and a few segments in between. Using handycams this instantly brings us into frustrating territory of moving shaky pictures, blurred images, and camera operators with shaky hands. Very poor quality recording even for a documentary style shooting as you're watching a black screen for the duration, has anyone ever heard of night vision? Next the acting, now the contestants themselves are not in on the game, they are not aware of what's going on or what they have signed up too, however Jon our 'medium' gives the game away at every opportunity. The strategically placed actor in the movie is Jon Paul Gates a supposed 'medium' who describes what he is feeling and how strong a presence is in a particular area. I personally would of caught on very easily to this poor display as not only was the acting questionable, but his descriptions of certain ghosts and characters were so detailed that it was obvious they had been memorised from a script or prior knowledge. There is one scene where the ghost is apparently on top of Jon as he is weighed to the ground, I found this scene hysterical, I was literally crying with laughter of how poor he not only acted it out but how a ghost was piggy backing a ride around the railway yard.
For the first 30 minutes of the movie, the group have arrived, walked around some railway tracks and picked up some weird force that only Jon can feel yet no one around the group has even felt or experienced anything out of this world. Now Most Haunted the popular paranormal TV show would of thrust the audience into some action by now but for the opening 30 minutes of Haunted, nothing of the sort has happened, as it stands the documentary as I refuse to call it a film has displayed more history about the railways than anything remotely paranormal. Maybe a title change would be for the best? I am neither scared, nor intrigued at this moment in time, quite frankly I'm hoping this heats up and soon.
I feel as thou if this film was cut shorter, much shorter, with a voice over documentary style about where each group is going and what they are doing it would be much more easier to watch. Cut the best bits in, jump scares, certain happenings, instead of mundane walking around a railway yard, because as it stands I could grab a camera, head off out tonight and shoot an identical piece of footage, its neither scary nor intriguing. It needs to have production value and Haunted is really suffering from a lack of it as a result.
There is one event throughout the whole movie which is the main talking point and then the film has the audacity to kill people off towards the end after a whole run time of nothingness, no build up, no real meaning or reason why. It was basically like watching the worst episode of Most Haunted to find one of your group dead on the floor at the end of it, planned, boring and drawn out far too long.
Shorten the run time, have a voice over, documentary coverage and film, DON'T kill anyone off at the end with some cheesy fake characters who no one now believes and have a genuine vigil, no pranks or set ups and this could of been a cool little paranormal programme.
Sadly none of the above happened. What a shame. A few sequels are in the works, shorten the duration, fix the countless problems and maybe, just maybe show some true paranormal / experiences and I guarantee it will be more of a success !
A TV crew will film a paranormal investigation and obtain evidence that proves we are not alone. Something Evil awaits them! They will all discover the truth, that we are not alone.
The above quote is taken directly from the synopsis on the website, contestants are invited to visit a haunted railway as part of the show of which they are filming, they are all packed into a limousine and taken to the event. The whole scenes within the limo following the group around SHOULD of been filmed by a professional camera and a professional cinematographer but it looks as thou the entire film has been shot on someone's mobile phone.
Budget constraints aside, decent camera's should of been used to document the entire film from introduction to the actual paranormal investigations, rather than Sony handycam's that cost £120. The only time still camera's are used is to document an almost news style report at the start of the film and a few segments in between. Using handycams this instantly brings us into frustrating territory of moving shaky pictures, blurred images, and camera operators with shaky hands. Very poor quality recording even for a documentary style shooting as you're watching a black screen for the duration, has anyone ever heard of night vision? Next the acting, now the contestants themselves are not in on the game, they are not aware of what's going on or what they have signed up too, however Jon our 'medium' gives the game away at every opportunity. The strategically placed actor in the movie is Jon Paul Gates a supposed 'medium' who describes what he is feeling and how strong a presence is in a particular area. I personally would of caught on very easily to this poor display as not only was the acting questionable, but his descriptions of certain ghosts and characters were so detailed that it was obvious they had been memorised from a script or prior knowledge. There is one scene where the ghost is apparently on top of Jon as he is weighed to the ground, I found this scene hysterical, I was literally crying with laughter of how poor he not only acted it out but how a ghost was piggy backing a ride around the railway yard.
For the first 30 minutes of the movie, the group have arrived, walked around some railway tracks and picked up some weird force that only Jon can feel yet no one around the group has even felt or experienced anything out of this world. Now Most Haunted the popular paranormal TV show would of thrust the audience into some action by now but for the opening 30 minutes of Haunted, nothing of the sort has happened, as it stands the documentary as I refuse to call it a film has displayed more history about the railways than anything remotely paranormal. Maybe a title change would be for the best? I am neither scared, nor intrigued at this moment in time, quite frankly I'm hoping this heats up and soon.
I feel as thou if this film was cut shorter, much shorter, with a voice over documentary style about where each group is going and what they are doing it would be much more easier to watch. Cut the best bits in, jump scares, certain happenings, instead of mundane walking around a railway yard, because as it stands I could grab a camera, head off out tonight and shoot an identical piece of footage, its neither scary nor intriguing. It needs to have production value and Haunted is really suffering from a lack of it as a result.
There is one event throughout the whole movie which is the main talking point and then the film has the audacity to kill people off towards the end after a whole run time of nothingness, no build up, no real meaning or reason why. It was basically like watching the worst episode of Most Haunted to find one of your group dead on the floor at the end of it, planned, boring and drawn out far too long.
Shorten the run time, have a voice over, documentary coverage and film, DON'T kill anyone off at the end with some cheesy fake characters who no one now believes and have a genuine vigil, no pranks or set ups and this could of been a cool little paranormal programme.
Sadly none of the above happened. What a shame. A few sequels are in the works, shorten the duration, fix the countless problems and maybe, just maybe show some true paranormal / experiences and I guarantee it will be more of a success !
Kyera (8 KP) rated The Circle in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Even a day after finishing The Circle by Dave Eggers, Im still not quite sure how I feel about the book. The story follows Mae, a young twenty-something year old as she gets a job at the Circle the biggest tech company around. Theyve essentially outperformed, purchased and influenced their competition like Google, Facebook and Apple and have become dominant in the field. The plot progresses as the company invents more and more ways to progress technology and access to knowledge.
I didnt find any of the characters in this book particularly likable. In fact, I really didnt connect with or like the main character at all. She seemed to have no backbone, became very defensive and accusatory with no motivation, meddled in other peoples private affairs, and made some terrible decisions in her life. Her choices throughout the book were very frustrating, as she succumbed to bad decision making, alienated her family, and pushed away her true friends.
For me, this book was very stress-inducing. Just Maes job in customer service became overwhelming very quickly. When she was introduced to her job, her desk and her coworkers, it was explained to her that she would have multiple points of contact that she must keep her focus on. Her first screen was for her work and interaction with customers, where she would respond to their queries and assist them with problems. The second screen was for inter-office communication (which was constant) between her and her colleagues. That in and of itself was overwhelming, but she was also told that she had to pay attention to her phone on her desk and the health monitor/smart watch type device on her wrist. As if that wasnt enough, over time the number of screens that were installed at her desk multiplied and became completely overwhelming to me as the reader. Just attempting to imagine having to deal with that was stressing me out a little.
As the book progressed, it reminded me more and more of 1984 and Big Brother. One of the first things that horrified me was the installation of cameras across the globe, although it was touted as a way to disseminate information and curb crime I could only think of the implications. What happened to personal privacy? As an introvert, the ideas put forth in the Circle were incredibly hard to accept. Circle membership grew, voting became mandatory and privacy all but disappeared. What makes the book even more hard-hitting and thought provoking is that the ideas in the book are the way that the world is currently progressing.
The book and its ideas definitely force you to think about the state of the world today, our reliance on technology and willingness to put so much information about ourselves out there in the world. Just as a slight spoiler, in the next paragraph I will discuss my feelings about the conclusion of the book. If you dont want to know whether they followed the path of Big Brother or rebelled, please just skip that paragraph and continue reading after that.
<spoiler>The entire book, I was expecting there to be a lesson about the overwhelming power of technology, our loss of privacy and the worlds discovery that this is not the way to live. There is a line that perhaps we should not cross and continuing on the path the Circle is taking is crossing that line. Unfortunately, that is not what happened in the book. In the end, the Circles way of being with no privacy, a world monopoly and forced participation in everything was accepted, wholeheartedly. I was baffled and so I have no idea how I feel about the book. It seemed like it was a technological horror, warning humanity but the acceptance at the end makes me question the purpose of the book. </spoiler>
One of my problems with the book may just stem from the issue of converting the book into eBook form and not formatting it well. As I have never paged through a physical copy, I dont know what the book is supposed to look like but beyond basic paragraph formatting there was no delineation between sections in my copy. Scene changes would occur where the day, location or character being interacted with would change and it caused a split-second of confusion. There were no chapters and no page breaks. The only formatting I had in my copy where the headings for book 1, 2, and 3. Again, this may just be my copy and if so I dont want to fault the book but if the physical book is like that, then I take issue with the formatting. It doesnt look professional and affects the readability of the book.
This book definitely forces you to think and may cause a few nightmares depending upon how you feel about technology, just be warned. Overall, I would recommend this book but to adult readers as it is not a young adult book.
I didnt find any of the characters in this book particularly likable. In fact, I really didnt connect with or like the main character at all. She seemed to have no backbone, became very defensive and accusatory with no motivation, meddled in other peoples private affairs, and made some terrible decisions in her life. Her choices throughout the book were very frustrating, as she succumbed to bad decision making, alienated her family, and pushed away her true friends.
For me, this book was very stress-inducing. Just Maes job in customer service became overwhelming very quickly. When she was introduced to her job, her desk and her coworkers, it was explained to her that she would have multiple points of contact that she must keep her focus on. Her first screen was for her work and interaction with customers, where she would respond to their queries and assist them with problems. The second screen was for inter-office communication (which was constant) between her and her colleagues. That in and of itself was overwhelming, but she was also told that she had to pay attention to her phone on her desk and the health monitor/smart watch type device on her wrist. As if that wasnt enough, over time the number of screens that were installed at her desk multiplied and became completely overwhelming to me as the reader. Just attempting to imagine having to deal with that was stressing me out a little.
As the book progressed, it reminded me more and more of 1984 and Big Brother. One of the first things that horrified me was the installation of cameras across the globe, although it was touted as a way to disseminate information and curb crime I could only think of the implications. What happened to personal privacy? As an introvert, the ideas put forth in the Circle were incredibly hard to accept. Circle membership grew, voting became mandatory and privacy all but disappeared. What makes the book even more hard-hitting and thought provoking is that the ideas in the book are the way that the world is currently progressing.
The book and its ideas definitely force you to think about the state of the world today, our reliance on technology and willingness to put so much information about ourselves out there in the world. Just as a slight spoiler, in the next paragraph I will discuss my feelings about the conclusion of the book. If you dont want to know whether they followed the path of Big Brother or rebelled, please just skip that paragraph and continue reading after that.
<spoiler>The entire book, I was expecting there to be a lesson about the overwhelming power of technology, our loss of privacy and the worlds discovery that this is not the way to live. There is a line that perhaps we should not cross and continuing on the path the Circle is taking is crossing that line. Unfortunately, that is not what happened in the book. In the end, the Circles way of being with no privacy, a world monopoly and forced participation in everything was accepted, wholeheartedly. I was baffled and so I have no idea how I feel about the book. It seemed like it was a technological horror, warning humanity but the acceptance at the end makes me question the purpose of the book. </spoiler>
One of my problems with the book may just stem from the issue of converting the book into eBook form and not formatting it well. As I have never paged through a physical copy, I dont know what the book is supposed to look like but beyond basic paragraph formatting there was no delineation between sections in my copy. Scene changes would occur where the day, location or character being interacted with would change and it caused a split-second of confusion. There were no chapters and no page breaks. The only formatting I had in my copy where the headings for book 1, 2, and 3. Again, this may just be my copy and if so I dont want to fault the book but if the physical book is like that, then I take issue with the formatting. It doesnt look professional and affects the readability of the book.
This book definitely forces you to think and may cause a few nightmares depending upon how you feel about technology, just be warned. Overall, I would recommend this book but to adult readers as it is not a young adult book.