Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bruno (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
Life is good for Austrian fashonista Bruno (Sacha Baron Cohen). As the star of the top Austrian fashion show, he is a fixture at all of the social events and is the flamboyant highpoint of any event he graces.
That is until things go awry and Bruno finds himself on the outside looking in and is blacklisted from the European fashion industry he lives for.
Undaunted, Bruno sets out to become a star and take America by storm in the shockingly outrageous and sure to be controversial “Bruno”. The film is a follow up to “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” which took the box office by storm when it was released three years ago.
Upon arriving in America, Bruno sets out to be a star, but soon runs into trouble when his first day on a television set goes out of control. If this was not bad enough, Bruno’s pitch for a variety shows scores badly with a focus group who are dismayed at the very graphic depiction of the male form and other outrageous humor.
Undaunted even when his attempts at celebrity interviews crash and burn around him, Bruno sets out to get tabloid attention by adopting a baby from Africa. This leads to a daring and outrageous segment on a Texas talk show where Bruno is verbally chastised by the predominately African American audience.
Unable to catch a break, Bruno travels to locales as diverse as Israel, Alabama, and Los Angeles hoping to get a break, but only finds failure. Despite his horrible luck, Bruno has the adoration of his assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammarsten), which sadly for Gustaf is unrequited.
Desperate for acceptance, Bruno decides to become straight and sets off to the South to learn what being a straight man is all about which sets up some outrageous encounters ranging from a swingers party to a hilarious macho man event hosted by Bruno as “Straight Dave”.
While there are those who will see only the nudity and crude humor of the film and dismiss it, those who are more open minded will see the genius of Cohen who is a master of improvisational. It is fascinating to see how much he throws himself into a scene and literally becomes his characters. No matter how outrageous the scenario, Cohen is not afraid to push the boundaries and get people to expose their true selves.
While his scenarios shock, they also educate and enlighten as he gets his unsuspecting co-stars to show sides of themselves and human nature which people try to hide and ignore. Despite thinking we are an enlightened society, there are those that are shocked by a person who is so flamboyant and open, even swingers whose very lifestyle is considered by most to be out of the norm and for others to be unordinary.
Numerous celebrity appearances also grace the film, which I will refrain from spoiling but suffice it to say add to the enjoyment of the film.
The movie does not have much in the way of plot and character development, but that is not the intention of the film, as the plot is a framework to connect the segments which work well in my opinion.
Unlike a Saturday Night Live sketch turned into a movie, “Bruno” works well within the films run time without overstaying its welcome and losing momentum.
In the end, you will either love or hate the film, and much of this will depend on your tolerance for very mature, bawdy, and controversial humor. For my taste, this was one of the funniest films I have ever seen and I could not stop laughing.
That is until things go awry and Bruno finds himself on the outside looking in and is blacklisted from the European fashion industry he lives for.
Undaunted, Bruno sets out to become a star and take America by storm in the shockingly outrageous and sure to be controversial “Bruno”. The film is a follow up to “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” which took the box office by storm when it was released three years ago.
Upon arriving in America, Bruno sets out to be a star, but soon runs into trouble when his first day on a television set goes out of control. If this was not bad enough, Bruno’s pitch for a variety shows scores badly with a focus group who are dismayed at the very graphic depiction of the male form and other outrageous humor.
Undaunted even when his attempts at celebrity interviews crash and burn around him, Bruno sets out to get tabloid attention by adopting a baby from Africa. This leads to a daring and outrageous segment on a Texas talk show where Bruno is verbally chastised by the predominately African American audience.
Unable to catch a break, Bruno travels to locales as diverse as Israel, Alabama, and Los Angeles hoping to get a break, but only finds failure. Despite his horrible luck, Bruno has the adoration of his assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammarsten), which sadly for Gustaf is unrequited.
Desperate for acceptance, Bruno decides to become straight and sets off to the South to learn what being a straight man is all about which sets up some outrageous encounters ranging from a swingers party to a hilarious macho man event hosted by Bruno as “Straight Dave”.
While there are those who will see only the nudity and crude humor of the film and dismiss it, those who are more open minded will see the genius of Cohen who is a master of improvisational. It is fascinating to see how much he throws himself into a scene and literally becomes his characters. No matter how outrageous the scenario, Cohen is not afraid to push the boundaries and get people to expose their true selves.
While his scenarios shock, they also educate and enlighten as he gets his unsuspecting co-stars to show sides of themselves and human nature which people try to hide and ignore. Despite thinking we are an enlightened society, there are those that are shocked by a person who is so flamboyant and open, even swingers whose very lifestyle is considered by most to be out of the norm and for others to be unordinary.
Numerous celebrity appearances also grace the film, which I will refrain from spoiling but suffice it to say add to the enjoyment of the film.
The movie does not have much in the way of plot and character development, but that is not the intention of the film, as the plot is a framework to connect the segments which work well in my opinion.
Unlike a Saturday Night Live sketch turned into a movie, “Bruno” works well within the films run time without overstaying its welcome and losing momentum.
In the end, you will either love or hate the film, and much of this will depend on your tolerance for very mature, bawdy, and controversial humor. For my taste, this was one of the funniest films I have ever seen and I could not stop laughing.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Gunman (2015) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Gunman starts as we meet Terrier (Penn) a mercenary whose cover as a humanitarian working in Congo who assignment was to kill the new minster of mining whose new policy could bring the country to its knees again. With the mission being a success, Terrier is forced to flee the country for his own safety. Years past and Terrier believes he is being followed and turns to his old friends who worked on that last mission, Stanley (Winstone), Terrance (Rylance) and Felix (Bardem) to see if anyone leaked the information about the hit.
Not knowing who to trust Terrier must race against tie to figure out the truth with his own life and loved ones lives on the line as the past continues to come back and haunt him.
Thoughts on The Gunman
Characters – Terrier is a sniper mercenary who poses as a humanitarian, he knows how to make connections and uses them to complete jobs, though his latest job turns out to be his last as he goes into hiding. Learning his life is in danger he goes in search for answers about who is after him, giving him a chance to see his love once again. Annie is the woman that Terrier must leave when he goes into hiding, the woman he loved, she has moved on though she still does love Terrier even after all these years. Felix is one of the connections from the job, he had always been jealous of the relationship Terrier and Annie had, leaving him to make his move once Terrier is out of the picture. Stanley is the connection in London that is a good friend that will help out where needed. Terrance is the one of the group which continued his success and knows who is still in the loop.
Performances – When it comes to performances we need to face the reality that Sean Penn is trying his luck at the Liam Neeson style of action film, he just doesn’t have the same levels of action in him and for the most part he doesn’t do anything to make us truly care about his character. When we look at the supporting cast on the male side we get four big-names we know do solid enough supporting roles, while Jasmine Trinca is solid enough as the love interest for Terrier.
Story – The story follows a mercenary that finds his previous job exposed to the people it has effective, but soon needs to learn who released the information. The was sold to be a fast paced action thriller, though the story is slow burning political thriller which focuses on the ideas that have been put forward when the rich try to control countries for their own means. The slow pace takes us out of the story because things just become boring for the most part.
Action/Crime – For an action film we get the very basic levels of shooting and combat which are covering up the bigger crime going on between the men.
Settings – The film takes us from growing African country that the Europeans and Americans are looking to take advantage off, to Europe as we get the locations that are designed to show us the hiding places are in every city.
Special Effects – The effects come from how the wounds look and that is about it, for the most part they are the strongest part of the film.
Scene of the Movie – Sniper time.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The pacing.
Final Thoughts – This is a slow burning action crime thriller that lacks any tension, suspicious about who the villain is and ends up playing out like a paint by numbers cliché.
Overall: Cliched and boring.
Not knowing who to trust Terrier must race against tie to figure out the truth with his own life and loved ones lives on the line as the past continues to come back and haunt him.
Thoughts on The Gunman
Characters – Terrier is a sniper mercenary who poses as a humanitarian, he knows how to make connections and uses them to complete jobs, though his latest job turns out to be his last as he goes into hiding. Learning his life is in danger he goes in search for answers about who is after him, giving him a chance to see his love once again. Annie is the woman that Terrier must leave when he goes into hiding, the woman he loved, she has moved on though she still does love Terrier even after all these years. Felix is one of the connections from the job, he had always been jealous of the relationship Terrier and Annie had, leaving him to make his move once Terrier is out of the picture. Stanley is the connection in London that is a good friend that will help out where needed. Terrance is the one of the group which continued his success and knows who is still in the loop.
Performances – When it comes to performances we need to face the reality that Sean Penn is trying his luck at the Liam Neeson style of action film, he just doesn’t have the same levels of action in him and for the most part he doesn’t do anything to make us truly care about his character. When we look at the supporting cast on the male side we get four big-names we know do solid enough supporting roles, while Jasmine Trinca is solid enough as the love interest for Terrier.
Story – The story follows a mercenary that finds his previous job exposed to the people it has effective, but soon needs to learn who released the information. The was sold to be a fast paced action thriller, though the story is slow burning political thriller which focuses on the ideas that have been put forward when the rich try to control countries for their own means. The slow pace takes us out of the story because things just become boring for the most part.
Action/Crime – For an action film we get the very basic levels of shooting and combat which are covering up the bigger crime going on between the men.
Settings – The film takes us from growing African country that the Europeans and Americans are looking to take advantage off, to Europe as we get the locations that are designed to show us the hiding places are in every city.
Special Effects – The effects come from how the wounds look and that is about it, for the most part they are the strongest part of the film.
Scene of the Movie – Sniper time.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The pacing.
Final Thoughts – This is a slow burning action crime thriller that lacks any tension, suspicious about who the villain is and ends up playing out like a paint by numbers cliché.
Overall: Cliched and boring.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Alpha (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Columbia Pictures new release Alpha stars Kodi Smit-McPhee as Keda, and
Jóhannes Haukur Jóhannesson) as Tau, his father.
Tau is the tribe leader, and must determine whether the young male tribe
members are ready for the annual hunt. He tests all the spear points
crafted by the boys, and passes or fails them based on the craftsmanship
of the arrowheads.
Keda is one of the only two young men that pass the test, and in spite
of his mothers (and his own) reservations, joins the hunt.
Keda isn’t a strong figure, like his father Tau, and the movie shows
some of the tension and strife this causes the father and son. Tau is
trying to teach Keda to be a leader, and Keda seems too soft-hearted to
be able to bear the task. Keda has a hard time with the killing of
animals, even though it is needed to sustain the tribe.
The annual hunt consists of tracking down a herd of bison over a span of
days, and then creeping up on them on their grazing grounds and spooking
them into headlong flight over the edge of a high cliff. The hunters
must keep the herd from turning back to the open plain by throwing their
spears and running full-tilt at the bison. The run to push the bison
over the cliffs edge starts off well, and then takes a tragic turn when
one of the bison turns towards the hunters and charges at Keda. Kedas
confidence breaks and he turns tail to run, with the bison chasing him
down. When the bison lowers his head to charge at Keda, the bisons horn
catches in Kedas clothing and the bison turns towards the cliff face and
dump Keda over the edge.
Keda miraculously lands on a rock outcropping about half way down the
cliff face, but it is still too far for Tau to reach him. Keda is
unconscious, and does not respond to his fathers calls.
Tau is convinced that he must leave his son for dead and head towards
home in order to be able to provide for the tribe.
A day later, Keda wakes and finds himself alone, with broken bones, and
no way to get off the cliff face.
What follows is a story of coming of age and determination. Keda must
find his way off the cliff face, and using the tools given to him by his
father on the way to the bison hunting grounds, find his way home. He
finds unlikely companionship in a wolf that he injured while the wolf
pack was hunting him down to try to eat him, which he nurses back to
health. He names the wolf “Alpha”, but in truth, it is Keda who is
learning to become the alpha, or leader of the pack.
The scenery in the movie is breathtaking, and the movie really comes to
life with the 3D option. I can only imagine that it would be even better
in IMAX.
There were pieces of the film that were entirely un-realistic, but they
were rather quickly covered up by the fast-paced nature of the film.
The only part I really groaned at was the very end scene, but I will let
you draw your own conclusions on that so that I don’t ruin it for you!
My son just turned 10 and he liked it a lot, but did mention that a few
parts were not 100% “kid-friendly” due to the scare-factor. He was
specifically referring to one scene that made us both literally jump in
our seats. He said over all the movie was great and that he enjoyed it
immensely.
I would give this movie 3.5 out of 5 stars, and recommend that you see
it in IMAX 3D if you are able!
Jóhannes Haukur Jóhannesson) as Tau, his father.
Tau is the tribe leader, and must determine whether the young male tribe
members are ready for the annual hunt. He tests all the spear points
crafted by the boys, and passes or fails them based on the craftsmanship
of the arrowheads.
Keda is one of the only two young men that pass the test, and in spite
of his mothers (and his own) reservations, joins the hunt.
Keda isn’t a strong figure, like his father Tau, and the movie shows
some of the tension and strife this causes the father and son. Tau is
trying to teach Keda to be a leader, and Keda seems too soft-hearted to
be able to bear the task. Keda has a hard time with the killing of
animals, even though it is needed to sustain the tribe.
The annual hunt consists of tracking down a herd of bison over a span of
days, and then creeping up on them on their grazing grounds and spooking
them into headlong flight over the edge of a high cliff. The hunters
must keep the herd from turning back to the open plain by throwing their
spears and running full-tilt at the bison. The run to push the bison
over the cliffs edge starts off well, and then takes a tragic turn when
one of the bison turns towards the hunters and charges at Keda. Kedas
confidence breaks and he turns tail to run, with the bison chasing him
down. When the bison lowers his head to charge at Keda, the bisons horn
catches in Kedas clothing and the bison turns towards the cliff face and
dump Keda over the edge.
Keda miraculously lands on a rock outcropping about half way down the
cliff face, but it is still too far for Tau to reach him. Keda is
unconscious, and does not respond to his fathers calls.
Tau is convinced that he must leave his son for dead and head towards
home in order to be able to provide for the tribe.
A day later, Keda wakes and finds himself alone, with broken bones, and
no way to get off the cliff face.
What follows is a story of coming of age and determination. Keda must
find his way off the cliff face, and using the tools given to him by his
father on the way to the bison hunting grounds, find his way home. He
finds unlikely companionship in a wolf that he injured while the wolf
pack was hunting him down to try to eat him, which he nurses back to
health. He names the wolf “Alpha”, but in truth, it is Keda who is
learning to become the alpha, or leader of the pack.
The scenery in the movie is breathtaking, and the movie really comes to
life with the 3D option. I can only imagine that it would be even better
in IMAX.
There were pieces of the film that were entirely un-realistic, but they
were rather quickly covered up by the fast-paced nature of the film.
The only part I really groaned at was the very end scene, but I will let
you draw your own conclusions on that so that I don’t ruin it for you!
My son just turned 10 and he liked it a lot, but did mention that a few
parts were not 100% “kid-friendly” due to the scare-factor. He was
specifically referring to one scene that made us both literally jump in
our seats. He said over all the movie was great and that he enjoyed it
immensely.
I would give this movie 3.5 out of 5 stars, and recommend that you see
it in IMAX 3D if you are able!
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Nanny and the Beast: A Billionaire Mafia Romance in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/New-blog-banner-17.png?ssl=1"/>;
Let me explain, before you all judge me. I don’t usually read these types of books. Nanny and the Beast was just a book that was recommended to me. By my mum. And I loved it!
The book features April, who is a nanny by profession. She goes for an interview in a Russian billionaire’s house for the nanny position.
Yuri is a Russian billionaire who has a niece, Yulia, that hasn’t been speaking for a few months. When he sees April, he can’t resist her – which is why he doesn’t give her the job – it is too dangerous for her to stick around.
But when destiny takes matters in her own hands, and April end up being Yulia’s nanny, they have to find a way to leave their fierce erotic needs aside and focus on the little girl’s happiness.
<b>With lust and danger coming from all sides, they are not prepared to settle for little.</b>
I loved April. She is a kind girl and cared deeply about Yulia. She fears Yuri, but also can’t help but feel the attraction between them. She kept having second thoughts and getting ready to leave, and still stayed. She kept feeling humiliated, but remained to see if this love might work. April was also a very bad friend. I feel the need of mentioning this. While it was okay for her to call her friend any time, she always talked and never listened, even when her friend clearly wanted to talk. That is a no-no for me.
As for Yuri, I don’t think I liked him that much. Yes, I admired his possessiveness around April and how he cared about both April and Yulia. Everything about Yuri is so mysterious, so secret, and he is always on the edge. Which makes him wanted, I would assume. However, some of his actions and beliefs made me so angry I wanted to throw this book!
<b><i>The emotional scene that intrigued me.</i></b>
She was left by her mother as a child, because her mother didn’t have the money. While April grows up, her mother becomes very rich and famous. A secret part of Rachel hopes that her mother will come back for her. At one scene in the book, April and Yuri attend a dinner and April’s mother is there. When she sees her with Yuri, she whispers to April she is not good enough and tells her to stay off him, so her other daughter can be with him. And while the mother didn’t know April is her daughter, April did, and it hurt her badly.
Quite an emotional scene for April, realizing that her mother moved on, and has changed, and the reason she probably left her at the very beginning never had anything to do with her money.
I read this book in a day, so if you want a short hot steamy romance with a sexy Russian Alpha-male, you will definitely enjoy this. There are a few emotional roller coasters throughout the book. However, if you are looking for a deep book that will help you discover the meaning of life, I am sorry to disappoint you.
<b>Secret note: If you have in mind books similar to this, I am open to recommendations.</b>
<b><i>Trigger warnings: Explicit sexual scenes, violence, murder and psychological trauma.</i></b>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/New-blog-banner-17.png?ssl=1"/>;
Let me explain, before you all judge me. I don’t usually read these types of books. Nanny and the Beast was just a book that was recommended to me. By my mum. And I loved it!
The book features April, who is a nanny by profession. She goes for an interview in a Russian billionaire’s house for the nanny position.
Yuri is a Russian billionaire who has a niece, Yulia, that hasn’t been speaking for a few months. When he sees April, he can’t resist her – which is why he doesn’t give her the job – it is too dangerous for her to stick around.
But when destiny takes matters in her own hands, and April end up being Yulia’s nanny, they have to find a way to leave their fierce erotic needs aside and focus on the little girl’s happiness.
<b>With lust and danger coming from all sides, they are not prepared to settle for little.</b>
I loved April. She is a kind girl and cared deeply about Yulia. She fears Yuri, but also can’t help but feel the attraction between them. She kept having second thoughts and getting ready to leave, and still stayed. She kept feeling humiliated, but remained to see if this love might work. April was also a very bad friend. I feel the need of mentioning this. While it was okay for her to call her friend any time, she always talked and never listened, even when her friend clearly wanted to talk. That is a no-no for me.
As for Yuri, I don’t think I liked him that much. Yes, I admired his possessiveness around April and how he cared about both April and Yulia. Everything about Yuri is so mysterious, so secret, and he is always on the edge. Which makes him wanted, I would assume. However, some of his actions and beliefs made me so angry I wanted to throw this book!
<b><i>The emotional scene that intrigued me.</i></b>
She was left by her mother as a child, because her mother didn’t have the money. While April grows up, her mother becomes very rich and famous. A secret part of Rachel hopes that her mother will come back for her. At one scene in the book, April and Yuri attend a dinner and April’s mother is there. When she sees her with Yuri, she whispers to April she is not good enough and tells her to stay off him, so her other daughter can be with him. And while the mother didn’t know April is her daughter, April did, and it hurt her badly.
Quite an emotional scene for April, realizing that her mother moved on, and has changed, and the reason she probably left her at the very beginning never had anything to do with her money.
I read this book in a day, so if you want a short hot steamy romance with a sexy Russian Alpha-male, you will definitely enjoy this. There are a few emotional roller coasters throughout the book. However, if you are looking for a deep book that will help you discover the meaning of life, I am sorry to disappoint you.
<b>Secret note: If you have in mind books similar to this, I am open to recommendations.</b>
<b><i>Trigger warnings: Explicit sexual scenes, violence, murder and psychological trauma.</i></b>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
It's difficult to know where to begin. I have strong feelings about Disney remakes in general, I was open to the idea until I saw some. I can understand remaking some that stand a chance of being mainly actual live-action like Cinderella and Beauty & The Beast, and I'm looking forward to Mulan despite its lack of Mushu... but... remaking something as "live-action" with realism when you have to include things that aren't realistic (talking animals) it seems pointless to me.
As the film started I was taken aback by the beautiful scenery shots, animation studios really have nailed realistic water. As the animals started to appear I was encouraged for the most part. The zebras and antelope looked wonderful and the movements were spot on, but the larger animals didn't quite have the same elegance. Watching it all was fine though until you noticed something, then it was difficult not to spot something else.
I really disliked the animation of Scar, I know he's supposed to look like the typical alpha male of the pride, but his look in the original and now has never been very in keeping to me.
The best piece of animation in the whole thing was Timon. That little meerkat was spot on through the whole thing for me, edgy and darting, it was perfect. The only drawback was the voiceover by Billy Eichner, he doesn't encapsulate the personality of Timon, but then he did have some big boots to fill.
With Timon as the best of animation, it was only fitting that Pumbaa filled in the other side by being the best of the voice cast. Seth Rogen was born for this role, he's fantastic. I absolutely loved him. Perfect comedic timing, maybe not the best singing voice but once it mixed in with everything else you couldn't tell.
Dare I say that I wasn't a fan of the songs? I didn't like the modern take on them... I'm not sure if I'd really classify it as a modern take, everything just seemed to be taken much more seriously than before. I actually quite enjoyed Be Prepared, while it wasn't really sung it probably plays better to Chiwetel Ejiofor's strengths done this way. The really dubious addition was the song "Spirit" by Beyoncé. It was barely included and if it was in there more then it really didn't stick out. The only bit I noticed was "spirit, spirit" being bellowed randomly. I've watched the video and full song on YouTube since the film, I can only assume that it's an attempt at best original song awards but I don't think it has that goosebump impact that Disney epics should. Those high notes should probably be left to Mariah.
It's difficult to know just how much my enjoyment of the original affected my feelings about the new one. It's not one that I grew up with, I rewatched it recently for what may have been the first time. Lion King is very much one of the Disney classics you can be aware of even without seeing it, that's the power of Disney.
Remaking a film as "live-action" when there's no human cast seems like the wrong choice to me. The realistic CGI will only work up to a point when you're trying to make animals speak. The films itself is still spectacular, and there are some amazing pieces of animation to see (I do love baby Simba, he's so cute), but I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it. When you look at it overall the voice cast isn't any better than the original, neither are the songs, with it being so incredibly similar with only the animation style being the major twist I'm left underwhelmed by the final cut.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-movie-review.html
As the film started I was taken aback by the beautiful scenery shots, animation studios really have nailed realistic water. As the animals started to appear I was encouraged for the most part. The zebras and antelope looked wonderful and the movements were spot on, but the larger animals didn't quite have the same elegance. Watching it all was fine though until you noticed something, then it was difficult not to spot something else.
I really disliked the animation of Scar, I know he's supposed to look like the typical alpha male of the pride, but his look in the original and now has never been very in keeping to me.
The best piece of animation in the whole thing was Timon. That little meerkat was spot on through the whole thing for me, edgy and darting, it was perfect. The only drawback was the voiceover by Billy Eichner, he doesn't encapsulate the personality of Timon, but then he did have some big boots to fill.
With Timon as the best of animation, it was only fitting that Pumbaa filled in the other side by being the best of the voice cast. Seth Rogen was born for this role, he's fantastic. I absolutely loved him. Perfect comedic timing, maybe not the best singing voice but once it mixed in with everything else you couldn't tell.
Dare I say that I wasn't a fan of the songs? I didn't like the modern take on them... I'm not sure if I'd really classify it as a modern take, everything just seemed to be taken much more seriously than before. I actually quite enjoyed Be Prepared, while it wasn't really sung it probably plays better to Chiwetel Ejiofor's strengths done this way. The really dubious addition was the song "Spirit" by Beyoncé. It was barely included and if it was in there more then it really didn't stick out. The only bit I noticed was "spirit, spirit" being bellowed randomly. I've watched the video and full song on YouTube since the film, I can only assume that it's an attempt at best original song awards but I don't think it has that goosebump impact that Disney epics should. Those high notes should probably be left to Mariah.
It's difficult to know just how much my enjoyment of the original affected my feelings about the new one. It's not one that I grew up with, I rewatched it recently for what may have been the first time. Lion King is very much one of the Disney classics you can be aware of even without seeing it, that's the power of Disney.
Remaking a film as "live-action" when there's no human cast seems like the wrong choice to me. The realistic CGI will only work up to a point when you're trying to make animals speak. The films itself is still spectacular, and there are some amazing pieces of animation to see (I do love baby Simba, he's so cute), but I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it. When you look at it overall the voice cast isn't any better than the original, neither are the songs, with it being so incredibly similar with only the animation style being the major twist I'm left underwhelmed by the final cut.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-movie-review.html
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Prom (2020) in Movies
Jan 1, 2021
Ruined by James Corden
The Prom is the latest film from Glee creator Ryan Murphy, adapted from the Broadway musical of the same name. It follows Emma (Jo Ellen Pellman) who inadvertently causes her high school prom to be cancelled from wanting to attend with her girlfriend Alyssa (Ariana DeBose), in a school governed by a PTA that is very much against inclusion. Meanwhile on Broadway, four down on their luck actors (Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, James Corden and Andrew Rannells) pick up on Emma’s story and decide to use it as a perfect opportunity to garner some publicity for themselves by showing their support.
The Prom is obviously a personal movie for director Ryan Murphy, after growing up in Indiana himself, but unfortunately he doesn’t quite manage to pull this off. The story has a very important message about inclusion and you can’t deny how powerful this is, but I don’t think it has been very well executed. Yes the entire film looks amazing, the colourful and flashy outfits look wonderful and add some much needed colour when the story moves from Broadway to Indiana. The songs too are good and toe-tappingly catchy, with ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ from Andrew Rannells being a particular standout for me, and I’d be lying if I said the glitz, glam and catchy songs didn’t make me smile. Newcomer Jo Ellen Pellman has a cracking voice and her performance here shows she’s definitely one to watch in future.
However this is where the positives stop. A large number of the songs sound the same and aside from the aforementioned ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ and the finale ‘It’s Time to Dance’, none of them are particularly memorable. The film is full of clichés and stereotypes and awkward dialogue and scenes – the cringeworthy and entirely unbelievable flirtation between Dee Dee (Streep) and Principal Hawkins (Keegan-Michael Key) is possibly one of the worst things I’ve had to watch in quite a while. The cast are obviously having a lot of fun with this and it shows in the musical numbers, but some of the characters and performances are entirely unlikeable. I know Dee Dee is meant to be a self obsessed narcissist, and Streep is hamming her up to the max, but she is a horrible character and I couldn’t abide her. Scenes with her that are meant to be comedic to me came across as awful and repulsive. Whilst she does improve over the course of the rather drawn out run time, I’m afraid the damage is done in the first 90 minutes. And I felt very sorry for Nicole Kidman, who aside from a Chicago-esque number, seems to have been entirely sidelined.
But the worst part of The Prom is the decision to cast James Corden as the gay male lead, Barry Glickman. What was Ryan Murphy thinking? I’ve never been a fan of Corden, but surely anyone watching this can see he’s a talk show host, not a Hollywood musical star? Not only is his American accent terrible, his performance is completely unbelievable and overly camp and outdated. How Andrew Rannells could bear to work opposite James Corden in this role when he could’ve shone as Barry I will never know. Had it not been for Corden, I probably would have liked this a lot more.
The Prom is a glitzy mash-up of old school Broadway and cheesy high school musicals, full of colourful catchy tunes, neat choreography and a powerful message, it’s just a shame the characters and some of the casting are lacking in the substance to make this anything better than average.
The Prom is obviously a personal movie for director Ryan Murphy, after growing up in Indiana himself, but unfortunately he doesn’t quite manage to pull this off. The story has a very important message about inclusion and you can’t deny how powerful this is, but I don’t think it has been very well executed. Yes the entire film looks amazing, the colourful and flashy outfits look wonderful and add some much needed colour when the story moves from Broadway to Indiana. The songs too are good and toe-tappingly catchy, with ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ from Andrew Rannells being a particular standout for me, and I’d be lying if I said the glitz, glam and catchy songs didn’t make me smile. Newcomer Jo Ellen Pellman has a cracking voice and her performance here shows she’s definitely one to watch in future.
However this is where the positives stop. A large number of the songs sound the same and aside from the aforementioned ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ and the finale ‘It’s Time to Dance’, none of them are particularly memorable. The film is full of clichés and stereotypes and awkward dialogue and scenes – the cringeworthy and entirely unbelievable flirtation between Dee Dee (Streep) and Principal Hawkins (Keegan-Michael Key) is possibly one of the worst things I’ve had to watch in quite a while. The cast are obviously having a lot of fun with this and it shows in the musical numbers, but some of the characters and performances are entirely unlikeable. I know Dee Dee is meant to be a self obsessed narcissist, and Streep is hamming her up to the max, but she is a horrible character and I couldn’t abide her. Scenes with her that are meant to be comedic to me came across as awful and repulsive. Whilst she does improve over the course of the rather drawn out run time, I’m afraid the damage is done in the first 90 minutes. And I felt very sorry for Nicole Kidman, who aside from a Chicago-esque number, seems to have been entirely sidelined.
But the worst part of The Prom is the decision to cast James Corden as the gay male lead, Barry Glickman. What was Ryan Murphy thinking? I’ve never been a fan of Corden, but surely anyone watching this can see he’s a talk show host, not a Hollywood musical star? Not only is his American accent terrible, his performance is completely unbelievable and overly camp and outdated. How Andrew Rannells could bear to work opposite James Corden in this role when he could’ve shone as Barry I will never know. Had it not been for Corden, I probably would have liked this a lot more.
The Prom is a glitzy mash-up of old school Broadway and cheesy high school musicals, full of colourful catchy tunes, neat choreography and a powerful message, it’s just a shame the characters and some of the casting are lacking in the substance to make this anything better than average.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The length of time it’s taken me to catch this one at the cinema belies my lukewarm interest in the material: I’m not a ‘fan boy’ for either Marvel or DC properties. As it turns out, writer/director David “Fury” Ayer’s Suicide Squad is just plain frustrating in cinematic terms.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
mostlyinpyjamas (13 KP) rated It Only Happens in the Movies in Books
Nov 25, 2017
Another cracker by Holly Bourne
The blurb; Audrey is over romance. Since her parents relationship imploded her mother’s been catatonic, so she takes a cinema job to get out of the house. But there she meets wannabe film-maker Harry.
Nobody expects Audrey and Harry to fall in love as hard and fast as they do. But that doesn’t mean things are easy.
Because real love isn’t like the movies…The greatest love story ever told doesn’t feature kissing in the snow, or racing to airports. It features pain and confusion and hope and wonder, and a ban on cheesy clichés. Oh, and Zombies.
~
I’m a huge fan of Holly Bourne, and with It only happens in the movies she has written another cracker!
It only happens in the movies challenges all those cliches from romantic movies, and the message they give about what love and relationships are like.
Audrey is instantly likeable, positive feminist characters are exactly what’s needed and Holly Bourne writes them so well. Audrey is getting over being dumped after having sex for the first time, trying to cope with her mum having a breakdown, and she’s been distant from her friends since her break up, her life is messy – and then she meets Harry.
Harry, with a reputation for being a player! He doesn’t always understand Audrey’s point of view, and he says the wrong things …
‘You’re not like other girls, are you?
but I like Harry. He tries!
In chapter 25, Audrey and her friend Alice talk about first time sex in a refreshingly honest way and this is, in my opinion, such an important thing to see in young adult books. Some girls, for whatever reason, don’t have someone they can talk about these things with, and I feel that it’s such a good thing that authors such as Holly Bourne are putting it out there.
I’ve read a number of feminist YA books this week, and I’m so pleased that they are being written. Conversations about consent, sexism, misogyny and rape culture are so important and these books help to get the message out there.
Excerpt from the book ; Men in films regularly kiss women who don’t want to be kissed. And those are supposed to be the good kisses. Either the woman is taken by surprise, or storming off in a mood, or having a huge go at them, or is engaged to somebody else, or claims she’s just plain Not Interested. And,how do men in movies respond to this clear instruction of “no”? They grab the woman’s face, and kiss her anyway. Roughly. Using their masculine force. And rather than being slapped or even arrested, these movie men are rewarded for their… well… sexual violence. The women “give into” the kiss after a brief moment of fighting it. You see, according to Hollywood, these women wanted to be kissed all along. It was just the male lead’s job to break through the barriers. Barriers like WILFUL CONSENT. Outside Hollywood movies, there is a term for being kissed against your will. This term isn’t “spontaneous” or “romantic” or “passionate”. No, it’s called sexual assault. It’s a crime punishable in the UK by up to ten years in prison.
~
Holly Bourne writes about feminist issues without being patronising and without telling her readers that we should hate all men.
If I’ve made it sound at all like It only happens in the movies is all feminist messages and no story then I must add that it’s entirely not that at all.
I enjoyed the story so much that I read it over a weekend, staying up far too late because I just couldn’t put it down. There’s plenty of drama, humour, and some lovely, touching moments! The ending – although it was perfect – exactly the way this story was meant to end – broke me. I cried actual tears.
Love isn’t just a feeling. Love is a choice too. And you may not be able to help your feelings, but you are responsible for the choices you make about what to do with them. (From It only happens in the movies).
Nobody expects Audrey and Harry to fall in love as hard and fast as they do. But that doesn’t mean things are easy.
Because real love isn’t like the movies…The greatest love story ever told doesn’t feature kissing in the snow, or racing to airports. It features pain and confusion and hope and wonder, and a ban on cheesy clichés. Oh, and Zombies.
~
I’m a huge fan of Holly Bourne, and with It only happens in the movies she has written another cracker!
It only happens in the movies challenges all those cliches from romantic movies, and the message they give about what love and relationships are like.
Audrey is instantly likeable, positive feminist characters are exactly what’s needed and Holly Bourne writes them so well. Audrey is getting over being dumped after having sex for the first time, trying to cope with her mum having a breakdown, and she’s been distant from her friends since her break up, her life is messy – and then she meets Harry.
Harry, with a reputation for being a player! He doesn’t always understand Audrey’s point of view, and he says the wrong things …
‘You’re not like other girls, are you?
but I like Harry. He tries!
In chapter 25, Audrey and her friend Alice talk about first time sex in a refreshingly honest way and this is, in my opinion, such an important thing to see in young adult books. Some girls, for whatever reason, don’t have someone they can talk about these things with, and I feel that it’s such a good thing that authors such as Holly Bourne are putting it out there.
I’ve read a number of feminist YA books this week, and I’m so pleased that they are being written. Conversations about consent, sexism, misogyny and rape culture are so important and these books help to get the message out there.
Excerpt from the book ; Men in films regularly kiss women who don’t want to be kissed. And those are supposed to be the good kisses. Either the woman is taken by surprise, or storming off in a mood, or having a huge go at them, or is engaged to somebody else, or claims she’s just plain Not Interested. And,how do men in movies respond to this clear instruction of “no”? They grab the woman’s face, and kiss her anyway. Roughly. Using their masculine force. And rather than being slapped or even arrested, these movie men are rewarded for their… well… sexual violence. The women “give into” the kiss after a brief moment of fighting it. You see, according to Hollywood, these women wanted to be kissed all along. It was just the male lead’s job to break through the barriers. Barriers like WILFUL CONSENT. Outside Hollywood movies, there is a term for being kissed against your will. This term isn’t “spontaneous” or “romantic” or “passionate”. No, it’s called sexual assault. It’s a crime punishable in the UK by up to ten years in prison.
~
Holly Bourne writes about feminist issues without being patronising and without telling her readers that we should hate all men.
If I’ve made it sound at all like It only happens in the movies is all feminist messages and no story then I must add that it’s entirely not that at all.
I enjoyed the story so much that I read it over a weekend, staying up far too late because I just couldn’t put it down. There’s plenty of drama, humour, and some lovely, touching moments! The ending – although it was perfect – exactly the way this story was meant to end – broke me. I cried actual tears.
Love isn’t just a feeling. Love is a choice too. And you may not be able to help your feelings, but you are responsible for the choices you make about what to do with them. (From It only happens in the movies).
Jamie (131 KP) rated Men Explain Things to Me: And Other Essays in Books
Jul 26, 2017
Poorly written (2 more)
Not intersectional
Lack of sources in the physical version
Mediocre essays, I wish I could've liked this more
Disappointment and shallow is probably the most apt descriptions I can think of when describing this book which is really sad because I usually enjoy feminist essays.
The titular essay, Men Explain Things to Me, discusses the author’s experiences with men explaining things with the assumption that she couldn’t possibly know due to her gender. While I was nodding my head that yes, I have experienced this as well, there was not much else. There was little to no research into the history of why this might be or any additional insight into the topic which was really a let down, I didn’t feel like I got much out of it. I should have known that the rest of the essays in this collection would be the same but I was optimistic.
One of the better essays was In Praise of the Threat: What Marriage Equality Really Means which discussed how the fight for marriage equality, or same-sex marriage, has been redefining the traditional gendered views of marriage and I thought that this was really great. However in a later essay Solnit goes on to claim that gay marriage would never have been possible if it weren’t for feminists redefining marriage as a union between equals, which is a statement I found both bold and mildly insulting.
I also need to address a specific statement that became the basis the essay, The Longest War, which was the following:
“Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion,
or a nationality, but it does have a gender.”
It is very apparent that Solnit doesn’t know a thing about intersectionality because any minority can tell you that the statement above is laughably false. Is it true, statistically, that more reported violent crimes are perpetrated by men? Yes. Do people in many societies have an issue with toxic masculinity? Yes. Does this mean, then, that violence has a gender, that it is purely a male problem? No. To say that it doesn’t have a specific race, class, religion, or nationality despite evidence to the contrary throughout history is naïve.
Solnit continues on to rant about how men are the almost exclusive source of violence and assault and how everyone should acknowledge this so we can go about finding solutions. She doesn’t go into much more depth than that or offer up much in the way of solutions herself. A large portion of the essay is just her fluffing up the piece with a literal list of vague examples which might not mean much to folks less knowledgeable about violent crimes. There are also quite a few statistics thrown in with absolutely no sources to back up the claims.
Not that I doubt the information provided, but in times where people cherry pick the news to fit their own narrative books like this become questionable. After flipping through the back of the book I eventually found a note in the acknowledgements section that Solnit chose to edit out her sources for the book version, but that they could be found on the online versions of her essays. It’s careless and lazy for an author that wants to be taken seriously.
Solnit also postulates at several points that because she has published several books that she is an authority and I found that sort of attitude to be self defeating. She talks about another author that she argued with about Virginia Woolfe and claims that she had “won” which just makes the author sound childish, and I wondered what the point of the essay was to begin with. It felt out of place for the rest of the collection and any connections she attempted to make were shaky at best.
I think that Solnit had some good ideas but the execution was extremely poor. Because she spends so much time listing examples and being over dramatic in her descriptions the actual point of discussion in her essays becomes muddled and unclear. There are far better essays out there that address the exact same topics. Men Explain Things to Me just wasn’t worth the time.
The titular essay, Men Explain Things to Me, discusses the author’s experiences with men explaining things with the assumption that she couldn’t possibly know due to her gender. While I was nodding my head that yes, I have experienced this as well, there was not much else. There was little to no research into the history of why this might be or any additional insight into the topic which was really a let down, I didn’t feel like I got much out of it. I should have known that the rest of the essays in this collection would be the same but I was optimistic.
One of the better essays was In Praise of the Threat: What Marriage Equality Really Means which discussed how the fight for marriage equality, or same-sex marriage, has been redefining the traditional gendered views of marriage and I thought that this was really great. However in a later essay Solnit goes on to claim that gay marriage would never have been possible if it weren’t for feminists redefining marriage as a union between equals, which is a statement I found both bold and mildly insulting.
I also need to address a specific statement that became the basis the essay, The Longest War, which was the following:
“Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion,
or a nationality, but it does have a gender.”
It is very apparent that Solnit doesn’t know a thing about intersectionality because any minority can tell you that the statement above is laughably false. Is it true, statistically, that more reported violent crimes are perpetrated by men? Yes. Do people in many societies have an issue with toxic masculinity? Yes. Does this mean, then, that violence has a gender, that it is purely a male problem? No. To say that it doesn’t have a specific race, class, religion, or nationality despite evidence to the contrary throughout history is naïve.
Solnit continues on to rant about how men are the almost exclusive source of violence and assault and how everyone should acknowledge this so we can go about finding solutions. She doesn’t go into much more depth than that or offer up much in the way of solutions herself. A large portion of the essay is just her fluffing up the piece with a literal list of vague examples which might not mean much to folks less knowledgeable about violent crimes. There are also quite a few statistics thrown in with absolutely no sources to back up the claims.
Not that I doubt the information provided, but in times where people cherry pick the news to fit their own narrative books like this become questionable. After flipping through the back of the book I eventually found a note in the acknowledgements section that Solnit chose to edit out her sources for the book version, but that they could be found on the online versions of her essays. It’s careless and lazy for an author that wants to be taken seriously.
Solnit also postulates at several points that because she has published several books that she is an authority and I found that sort of attitude to be self defeating. She talks about another author that she argued with about Virginia Woolfe and claims that she had “won” which just makes the author sound childish, and I wondered what the point of the essay was to begin with. It felt out of place for the rest of the collection and any connections she attempted to make were shaky at best.
I think that Solnit had some good ideas but the execution was extremely poor. Because she spends so much time listing examples and being over dramatic in her descriptions the actual point of discussion in her essays becomes muddled and unclear. There are far better essays out there that address the exact same topics. Men Explain Things to Me just wasn’t worth the time.
Mothergamer (1521 KP) rated Heroes of Cosplay - Season 1 in TV
Apr 3, 2019
Plain and simple, after checking out tonight's episode of Heroes Of Cosplay I had a bad taste in my mouth. It just seemed like yet another reality show, but it missed the point of cosplay. While I know the people on the show had no control over the editing, it was disappointing to see them only focus on the competition aspect of it and not showcase the cosplayers who also do it because they love it and have fun doing it. Many of my friends who cosplay come up with some amazing and great costumes. Some compete and some do it for fun, but both love it and enjoy themselves. I really didn't see a lot of joy on this show. I saw a lot of drama, negativity, and judging the other person because they didn't agree with their cosplay choice.
I know it's for TV and it's "scripted", but it would have been nice to see some positive things, such as how encouraging cosplayers can be and supportive of each other about costume choices, or how helpful they can be when asked about how to make a cosplay better or more cost efficient without missing out on making a great costume. Instead, it was essentially The Jersey Shore of cosplay and it was awful. To have the only good thing be Yaya Han with an amazing League Of Legends cosplay by the way, does not make for a good show. There's also the factor that Mark Cronin, an executive producer of the show basically dismissed male cosplayers in a TV Guide interview by stating that their costumes were simpler because it's just body armor, capes, and weaponry and the female cosplayers were more interesting, sexy, and cool. Seriously? Tell that to one of my friends who MAKES his own armor and weapons, actual chain mail and the like. Trust me, there's no simple about it. Both genders put a lot of work into their cosplay, there isn't one is better than the other. Just from that statement alone, I should have known this show was in trouble and not going to be done right at all.
Then there's this wonderful stunt that Syfy pulled:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=615451091819119&set=a.394389740591923.99759.387115251319372&type=1&theater
That's right. They used the photographers' photos WITHOUT permission and they knew exactly what they were doing, as they cropped them so the watermarks did not show on the page, and did not give them credit or get a copyright release from them. They did it to at least seven photographers that we know of. Of course the people who they blatantly STOLE from were angry and they had every right to be. Not only does this show an outrageous show of disrespect to the cosplay community as well as the photographers' whose work they ripped off, it's mind boggling that they thought they could get away with it without anyone noticing! The only one who actually took the time to try and make it right was Yaya Han who stated on her fan page that she had immediately informed Syfy's PR department about it and was doing everything in her power to make sure that the photographers did get credit for their work.
I like Yaya Han. She comes across as genuinely kind, loves cosplay as much as her fans, and unlike Syfy's craptastic PR department, cares about doing the right thing. This is why I really wanted to like this show. I really did. I was pleased to see she was doing this show about cosplay, but after watching this first episode and seeing that Syfy apologized on their page only AFTER they were caught and informed (But let's face it, they KNOW the rules about copyright infringement) that hey, it's bad to steal an artist's work, not even the fantastic Yaya Han can convince me to watch. It's really a shame, because they had an opportunity to do something great and showcase all the aspects of cosplay and what it means to those who enjoy and love it. Instead, they went the let's be gigantic a-holes route and behaved pretty damn shamefully.
So, no I will not be watching this again. One episode was enough.
I know it's for TV and it's "scripted", but it would have been nice to see some positive things, such as how encouraging cosplayers can be and supportive of each other about costume choices, or how helpful they can be when asked about how to make a cosplay better or more cost efficient without missing out on making a great costume. Instead, it was essentially The Jersey Shore of cosplay and it was awful. To have the only good thing be Yaya Han with an amazing League Of Legends cosplay by the way, does not make for a good show. There's also the factor that Mark Cronin, an executive producer of the show basically dismissed male cosplayers in a TV Guide interview by stating that their costumes were simpler because it's just body armor, capes, and weaponry and the female cosplayers were more interesting, sexy, and cool. Seriously? Tell that to one of my friends who MAKES his own armor and weapons, actual chain mail and the like. Trust me, there's no simple about it. Both genders put a lot of work into their cosplay, there isn't one is better than the other. Just from that statement alone, I should have known this show was in trouble and not going to be done right at all.
Then there's this wonderful stunt that Syfy pulled:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=615451091819119&set=a.394389740591923.99759.387115251319372&type=1&theater
That's right. They used the photographers' photos WITHOUT permission and they knew exactly what they were doing, as they cropped them so the watermarks did not show on the page, and did not give them credit or get a copyright release from them. They did it to at least seven photographers that we know of. Of course the people who they blatantly STOLE from were angry and they had every right to be. Not only does this show an outrageous show of disrespect to the cosplay community as well as the photographers' whose work they ripped off, it's mind boggling that they thought they could get away with it without anyone noticing! The only one who actually took the time to try and make it right was Yaya Han who stated on her fan page that she had immediately informed Syfy's PR department about it and was doing everything in her power to make sure that the photographers did get credit for their work.
I like Yaya Han. She comes across as genuinely kind, loves cosplay as much as her fans, and unlike Syfy's craptastic PR department, cares about doing the right thing. This is why I really wanted to like this show. I really did. I was pleased to see she was doing this show about cosplay, but after watching this first episode and seeing that Syfy apologized on their page only AFTER they were caught and informed (But let's face it, they KNOW the rules about copyright infringement) that hey, it's bad to steal an artist's work, not even the fantastic Yaya Han can convince me to watch. It's really a shame, because they had an opportunity to do something great and showcase all the aspects of cosplay and what it means to those who enjoy and love it. Instead, they went the let's be gigantic a-holes route and behaved pretty damn shamefully.
So, no I will not be watching this again. One episode was enough.