Search
Search results
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
The best Zom-com since its predecessor!
When "Zombieland (2009)" first came out, I was sceptical about it, as it looked like it would be nothing but a gore-fest packed with silly and cringe-worthy cheap laughs. But then it started and 'For Whom The Bell Tolls' began playing and I knew I was in for a treat!
Fast-forward a decade, and I entered "Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)" with similar scepticism. I was concerned the studios were going to take what had become a modern classic and simply rehash it in a poor attempt to cash in on its previous success. But then it started and 'Master of Puppets' began playing and I knew I was in for a treat!
Picking up seamlessly where the first one left off, both in terms of story and tone, Double Tap begins with the our group of heroes approaching the White House, which they decide is a good place to lay down some roots in the post-apocalyptic, zombie-infested world they find themselves in.
It isn't long before the youngest member of the group, Little Rock, tires of their attempt at normality, desperate for interaction with any survivors her own age. After Wichita and Columbus fall out, the sisters take off, prompting a road trip for Tallahassee and Columbus to bring them back.
This is a masterclass in how a comedy movie should be executed. Laughs are frequent but not forced. The script is well-written and packed with the same sharp, witty dialogue found in its predecessor. And it manages to maintain its pacing for the duration - something few films can pull off. Too often, comedy films start off with an hilarious first act, but then runs out of steam by Act 2 before ruining the final act by trying to be too serious.
Yes, I'm looking at you "Baywatch (2017)"!
But Double Tap doesn't suffer from any of that. It retains the heart that made it stand out the first time around, whilst building on the laughs and relationships between the characters.
I found this film a little more meta than I remember the first one being. Lots of references to Zombie pop culture, like "The Walking Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead" - both of which Columbus refers to as unrealistic, which is ironically funny.
Of course, being a sequel, you need to introduce some new faces. The first one is Madison, played brilliantly by the beautiful Zoey Deutch. When the airhead blonde stereotype first appears, you immediately cringe and worry she's going to be the annoying tag-along that hopefully dies... yet the character is written in such a way that she effortlessly fits into the group and quickly becomes a likeable addition.
Next is Nevada, portrayed by the ever-reliable Rosario Dawson. She's a hard-hitting, Zombie-killing, Elvis-loving beauty who is an immediate and obvious match for Tallahassee.
And speaking of him, Woody Harrelson again steals the show with his incredibly funny, heart-warming and cringe-inducing turn as the violent Redneck. His lines are hilarious, even when they're not meant to be, and they're delivered inch-perfect every time.
The soundtrack is spot-on, and the visuals fit the type of movie this is trying to be. Overall, this film is a real treat. It flies by, provides many, many laughs, and also tugs on the heart strings just a little bit. It has everything that made the first one great, and it adds just enough to make this feel like more than just a remake.
Oh, and without spoiling things, it ain't over 'til the credits stop rolling... just saying! :-)
Not to be missed!
Fast-forward a decade, and I entered "Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)" with similar scepticism. I was concerned the studios were going to take what had become a modern classic and simply rehash it in a poor attempt to cash in on its previous success. But then it started and 'Master of Puppets' began playing and I knew I was in for a treat!
Picking up seamlessly where the first one left off, both in terms of story and tone, Double Tap begins with the our group of heroes approaching the White House, which they decide is a good place to lay down some roots in the post-apocalyptic, zombie-infested world they find themselves in.
It isn't long before the youngest member of the group, Little Rock, tires of their attempt at normality, desperate for interaction with any survivors her own age. After Wichita and Columbus fall out, the sisters take off, prompting a road trip for Tallahassee and Columbus to bring them back.
This is a masterclass in how a comedy movie should be executed. Laughs are frequent but not forced. The script is well-written and packed with the same sharp, witty dialogue found in its predecessor. And it manages to maintain its pacing for the duration - something few films can pull off. Too often, comedy films start off with an hilarious first act, but then runs out of steam by Act 2 before ruining the final act by trying to be too serious.
Yes, I'm looking at you "Baywatch (2017)"!
But Double Tap doesn't suffer from any of that. It retains the heart that made it stand out the first time around, whilst building on the laughs and relationships between the characters.
I found this film a little more meta than I remember the first one being. Lots of references to Zombie pop culture, like "The Walking Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead" - both of which Columbus refers to as unrealistic, which is ironically funny.
Of course, being a sequel, you need to introduce some new faces. The first one is Madison, played brilliantly by the beautiful Zoey Deutch. When the airhead blonde stereotype first appears, you immediately cringe and worry she's going to be the annoying tag-along that hopefully dies... yet the character is written in such a way that she effortlessly fits into the group and quickly becomes a likeable addition.
Next is Nevada, portrayed by the ever-reliable Rosario Dawson. She's a hard-hitting, Zombie-killing, Elvis-loving beauty who is an immediate and obvious match for Tallahassee.
And speaking of him, Woody Harrelson again steals the show with his incredibly funny, heart-warming and cringe-inducing turn as the violent Redneck. His lines are hilarious, even when they're not meant to be, and they're delivered inch-perfect every time.
The soundtrack is spot-on, and the visuals fit the type of movie this is trying to be. Overall, this film is a real treat. It flies by, provides many, many laughs, and also tugs on the heart strings just a little bit. It has everything that made the first one great, and it adds just enough to make this feel like more than just a remake.
Oh, and without spoiling things, it ain't over 'til the credits stop rolling... just saying! :-)
Not to be missed!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 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!
Lee (2222 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Jan 24, 2019 (Updated Jan 24, 2019)
A very funny, heartwarming drama about adoption
On paper, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Instant Family is going to be just like so many other movies you've seen over the years. A couple without children of their own decides to adopt and end up with three troubled siblings of varying ages. And when you read that it's from director/co-writer Sean Anders, along with Mark Wahlberg, who worked together on both of the 'Daddy's Home' movies, you'll think you've got a pretty good idea of the tone and direction this movie is going to follow. Luckily though, while there are some genuinely very funny moments in this movie, it also manages to successfully blend it with some serious human drama and emotion and a fantastic set of characters.
Instant Family is based on the real life experience of the director Sean Anders and the adoption process he went through with his wife. In the movie, the couple are called Pete and Ellie (Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne), who earn their living by flipping houses (buy, renovate, sell). After Ellie has an argument with her sister regarding kids, they begin thinking about having children of their own. Worried about their age, they begin looking into fostering, with a view to eventually adopting an older child.
They visit an adoption agency, where they are joined by a number of other couples and single parents all looking to find out more and begin their journey to becoming parents. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are social workers, there to guide them all through the process. A very funny double act, providing a lot of the movies hilariously well timed lines. In fact, all of the other potential adopters are well written and funny, continuing to crop up throughout the movie as we revisit how everyone is getting on with their fostered children. None of this is zany, particularly goofy or over the top though - it's made very clear that many of the children in the foster system have had a pretty awful life so far, and this honest piece of reality is never downplayed.
At a meet-and-greet with potential adoptive children, organised as an outdoor event in a park, Pete and Ellie are drawn to Lizzie (Isabela Moner), a fiery teenage girl who is hanging out with the other older kids - separated from the main gathering, having resigned themselves to the notion that they're never going to get chosen by the prospective parents. When the couple mark her down as a potential for fostering, they learn that she actually comes as part of a package, having a younger brother Juan and even younger sister Lita. Pete and Ellie decide to go for it and foster all three, convinced they can make a difference in these kids lives.
There follows a period of new parents being thrown in at the deep end - the stressful night time routine, the problems with getting kids to eat and dress properly, problems at school etc. But again, it's not over the top - rooted in reality and successfully managing to walk the line between comedy and drama without resorting to exaggerated comedy set pieces. The problems experienced are made all the more challenging as the couple trying to care for and raise children who haven't had a great start in life, and have been used to a very particular way of living. Made even more difficult when the children's birth mother appears on the scene later in the movie.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy this movie as much as I did. There are more laugh out loud moments than any movie I've seen in recent years that bills itself as a comedy, but at the same time it's also a really heartwarming feel-good drama. So many enjoyable characters too, and with a sharp script that brings out the best in them all. Hugely enjoyable.
Instant Family is based on the real life experience of the director Sean Anders and the adoption process he went through with his wife. In the movie, the couple are called Pete and Ellie (Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne), who earn their living by flipping houses (buy, renovate, sell). After Ellie has an argument with her sister regarding kids, they begin thinking about having children of their own. Worried about their age, they begin looking into fostering, with a view to eventually adopting an older child.
They visit an adoption agency, where they are joined by a number of other couples and single parents all looking to find out more and begin their journey to becoming parents. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are social workers, there to guide them all through the process. A very funny double act, providing a lot of the movies hilariously well timed lines. In fact, all of the other potential adopters are well written and funny, continuing to crop up throughout the movie as we revisit how everyone is getting on with their fostered children. None of this is zany, particularly goofy or over the top though - it's made very clear that many of the children in the foster system have had a pretty awful life so far, and this honest piece of reality is never downplayed.
At a meet-and-greet with potential adoptive children, organised as an outdoor event in a park, Pete and Ellie are drawn to Lizzie (Isabela Moner), a fiery teenage girl who is hanging out with the other older kids - separated from the main gathering, having resigned themselves to the notion that they're never going to get chosen by the prospective parents. When the couple mark her down as a potential for fostering, they learn that she actually comes as part of a package, having a younger brother Juan and even younger sister Lita. Pete and Ellie decide to go for it and foster all three, convinced they can make a difference in these kids lives.
There follows a period of new parents being thrown in at the deep end - the stressful night time routine, the problems with getting kids to eat and dress properly, problems at school etc. But again, it's not over the top - rooted in reality and successfully managing to walk the line between comedy and drama without resorting to exaggerated comedy set pieces. The problems experienced are made all the more challenging as the couple trying to care for and raise children who haven't had a great start in life, and have been used to a very particular way of living. Made even more difficult when the children's birth mother appears on the scene later in the movie.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy this movie as much as I did. There are more laugh out loud moments than any movie I've seen in recent years that bills itself as a comedy, but at the same time it's also a really heartwarming feel-good drama. So many enjoyable characters too, and with a sharp script that brings out the best in them all. Hugely enjoyable.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Flatland (Enhanced Illustrated Edition) in Books
Nov 13, 2019
I have wanted to read Flatland since I read the reference to it in Gödel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid which was a set text at university. As the book is out of copyright it was one of the first that I downloaded to my eReader.
The book (although really a novella rather than a full novel at only 88 pages) works on two levels; firstly the story revolves around A Square, an inhabitant of the two dimensional space that is Flatland. Most of the book describes the rigid social hierarchy of the regular polygons that make up the people - the more sides a person has the higher their social standing. Irregular shapes are despised and usually executed. The second half involves investigation into the nature of dimensions when A Square first of all dreams of a one dimensional land, then is shown three dimensions and zero dimensions by a spherical person from the three dimensional land.
The first half is a satire on the rigid class system of Victorian society - it is particularly disparaging of women, who being lines rather than shapes are very much second class citizens, even having their own doors into and out of houses. This half shows the book's age, it was written in a different time and looking at it from more than 100 years later a lot of the discussion is overlong and unengaging. This part has not aged at all well.
The book only comes into its own when A Square has a dream about a land of one dimension, populated by lines of varying length, the longest line being the King of Lineland. The two dimensional dreamer attempts to persuade the King that is he could step sideways he would be able to see that his land of a single line was limited. Of course the King can conceive of no such direction as 'sideways' and rejects the suggestion as ridiculous.
A sphere from the 3 dimensional land of Space then visits Flatland, appearing as a circle of varying size as he passes through the two dimensional space. He tries to persuade Square that if he could move 'up' or 'down' he would be able to move beyond the rigid plane of his existence. Obviously the square cannot understand a direction which doesn't fall into two dimensions, until the sphere pulls him up and then he can look down to see Flatland spread out below him. He has an epiphany and is determined to spread the word on three dimensional space. The sphere also visits a zero dimensional land. However when the square suggests that if the sphere could somehow move in a new direction he might be able to enter four dimensional space the sphere is very quick to say how ridiculous such a notion is.
In this way the ideas behind dimensions are communicated quite effectively, including being able to deduce the properties of a four dimensional regular shape by extrapolating the properties of lines, squares and cubes. It is then clear how properties of higher dimensions can be calculated without our poor three dimensional minds actually being able to perceive of it.
Flatland is regarded as one of the very first science fiction novels. So is Gulliver's Travels but that has very little science and to my mind is more of a fantasy book. Despite Flatland having very little in the way of story and plot (although there are twists in the story) and the first half isn't really story at all but social commentary, it definitely describes fantastic worlds and imagines what the results would be of living in such places. This seems to me to be the very concept behind science fiction.
In conclusion, I would not recommend this to everyone as I think its appeal is quite limited. But for anyone of a mathematical bent who likes science fiction, it's always good to see where it all started.
The book (although really a novella rather than a full novel at only 88 pages) works on two levels; firstly the story revolves around A Square, an inhabitant of the two dimensional space that is Flatland. Most of the book describes the rigid social hierarchy of the regular polygons that make up the people - the more sides a person has the higher their social standing. Irregular shapes are despised and usually executed. The second half involves investigation into the nature of dimensions when A Square first of all dreams of a one dimensional land, then is shown three dimensions and zero dimensions by a spherical person from the three dimensional land.
The first half is a satire on the rigid class system of Victorian society - it is particularly disparaging of women, who being lines rather than shapes are very much second class citizens, even having their own doors into and out of houses. This half shows the book's age, it was written in a different time and looking at it from more than 100 years later a lot of the discussion is overlong and unengaging. This part has not aged at all well.
The book only comes into its own when A Square has a dream about a land of one dimension, populated by lines of varying length, the longest line being the King of Lineland. The two dimensional dreamer attempts to persuade the King that is he could step sideways he would be able to see that his land of a single line was limited. Of course the King can conceive of no such direction as 'sideways' and rejects the suggestion as ridiculous.
A sphere from the 3 dimensional land of Space then visits Flatland, appearing as a circle of varying size as he passes through the two dimensional space. He tries to persuade Square that if he could move 'up' or 'down' he would be able to move beyond the rigid plane of his existence. Obviously the square cannot understand a direction which doesn't fall into two dimensions, until the sphere pulls him up and then he can look down to see Flatland spread out below him. He has an epiphany and is determined to spread the word on three dimensional space. The sphere also visits a zero dimensional land. However when the square suggests that if the sphere could somehow move in a new direction he might be able to enter four dimensional space the sphere is very quick to say how ridiculous such a notion is.
In this way the ideas behind dimensions are communicated quite effectively, including being able to deduce the properties of a four dimensional regular shape by extrapolating the properties of lines, squares and cubes. It is then clear how properties of higher dimensions can be calculated without our poor three dimensional minds actually being able to perceive of it.
Flatland is regarded as one of the very first science fiction novels. So is Gulliver's Travels but that has very little science and to my mind is more of a fantasy book. Despite Flatland having very little in the way of story and plot (although there are twists in the story) and the first half isn't really story at all but social commentary, it definitely describes fantastic worlds and imagines what the results would be of living in such places. This seems to me to be the very concept behind science fiction.
In conclusion, I would not recommend this to everyone as I think its appeal is quite limited. But for anyone of a mathematical bent who likes science fiction, it's always good to see where it all started.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Jan 23, 2020
In this day and age, where Star Wars is beloved by so many, and more recently met with sighs and trepidation by just as many, it's a franchise that easily faces scrutiny.
We can look at both the prequel and sequel trilogies to plainly see that it doesn't take much to piss off Star Wars fans in one way or another.
The announcement of Rogue One was met with said scrutiny, some saying it wasn't needed, some feeling fatigued by the sheer amount of Star Wars being thrown at us, sentiments that I can understand.
But I truly believe that Rogue One was a surprising win, and I left the cinema feeling that it belonged up there with the top tier SW films, and my opinion hasn't budged on repeat viewings.
The story revolves around a rag tag group of mercenaries, smugglers, and outcasts, and how they managed to secure the Death Star plans that set off the events of A New Hope back in 1977.
The cast of heroes aren't fleshed out a huge deal, but were given enough backstory to understand them adequately and back their campaign against the Empire.
Just like TFA, it's great to have another female lead in the SW universe. Felicity Jones is likable enough as Jyn Erso, even if her character is a little on the vanilla side.
The duo of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus (Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang) work great next to one another, and provide a lot of the films humour and emotional impact.
The droid K2-SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) is also a surprising highlight, his dry sense of humour works fantastically with the more serious tone of the movie.
We also have Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) which is the only character from the main group I struggled to like. He's written like a poor man's Han Solo, and I just didn't care about him at all, an aspect that can hopefully be rectified in the upcoming Disney+ series.
We also have Forest Whitaker as Saw Gerrera - a concrete connection to Star Wars: Rebels no less!, Mads Mikkelsen as Jyn's father Galen, and Ben Mendelsohn as this films villain, Orson Krennic.
It's a really strong cast if mostly enjoyable characters that earn their place in the SW pantheon.
In terms of cinematography, Star Wars has arguably never looked so good. Gorgeous and colourful locations like Scarif contrast against the classic Whit and greys of the original Empire design beautifully. All of the CG effects are more or less perfect, (with a huge exception that I'll get to in a second) and the action set pieces are thrilling. The whole final act is spectacular, and then just when it's seems like it's all over, we get THAT ending sequence - Gareth Edwards knows just the right amount of nostalgia to ensure the audience laps it up, and it's one of the best minutes of any Star Wars film ever.
The exception I mentioned above is of course going to be the subject of bringing back real actors from the dead. The inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin makes sense in this particular narrative, but it does feel a bit odd seeing Peter Cushing, who died over 20 years ago, back on screen. Another cameo late on that includes a younger version of a legendary Star Wars character looks really off as well.
Overall though, these are just nit picks at an otherwise terrific sci-fi adventure.
Rogue One is bonafide great entry into the Star Wars canon, and its my personal favourite of the Disney era so far. Top stuff.
We can look at both the prequel and sequel trilogies to plainly see that it doesn't take much to piss off Star Wars fans in one way or another.
The announcement of Rogue One was met with said scrutiny, some saying it wasn't needed, some feeling fatigued by the sheer amount of Star Wars being thrown at us, sentiments that I can understand.
But I truly believe that Rogue One was a surprising win, and I left the cinema feeling that it belonged up there with the top tier SW films, and my opinion hasn't budged on repeat viewings.
The story revolves around a rag tag group of mercenaries, smugglers, and outcasts, and how they managed to secure the Death Star plans that set off the events of A New Hope back in 1977.
The cast of heroes aren't fleshed out a huge deal, but were given enough backstory to understand them adequately and back their campaign against the Empire.
Just like TFA, it's great to have another female lead in the SW universe. Felicity Jones is likable enough as Jyn Erso, even if her character is a little on the vanilla side.
The duo of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus (Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang) work great next to one another, and provide a lot of the films humour and emotional impact.
The droid K2-SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) is also a surprising highlight, his dry sense of humour works fantastically with the more serious tone of the movie.
We also have Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) which is the only character from the main group I struggled to like. He's written like a poor man's Han Solo, and I just didn't care about him at all, an aspect that can hopefully be rectified in the upcoming Disney+ series.
We also have Forest Whitaker as Saw Gerrera - a concrete connection to Star Wars: Rebels no less!, Mads Mikkelsen as Jyn's father Galen, and Ben Mendelsohn as this films villain, Orson Krennic.
It's a really strong cast if mostly enjoyable characters that earn their place in the SW pantheon.
In terms of cinematography, Star Wars has arguably never looked so good. Gorgeous and colourful locations like Scarif contrast against the classic Whit and greys of the original Empire design beautifully. All of the CG effects are more or less perfect, (with a huge exception that I'll get to in a second) and the action set pieces are thrilling. The whole final act is spectacular, and then just when it's seems like it's all over, we get THAT ending sequence - Gareth Edwards knows just the right amount of nostalgia to ensure the audience laps it up, and it's one of the best minutes of any Star Wars film ever.
The exception I mentioned above is of course going to be the subject of bringing back real actors from the dead. The inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin makes sense in this particular narrative, but it does feel a bit odd seeing Peter Cushing, who died over 20 years ago, back on screen. Another cameo late on that includes a younger version of a legendary Star Wars character looks really off as well.
Overall though, these are just nit picks at an otherwise terrific sci-fi adventure.
Rogue One is bonafide great entry into the Star Wars canon, and its my personal favourite of the Disney era so far. Top stuff.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
Fantastic performances from two old acting pros.
Being inaugurated as a new pope in the last century must have been a source of enormous pride. But there must also have been a nagging thought... at some point you are going to be paraded, stiff as a board, around your work courtyard before being taken back inside to your place of work and buried there!
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Very Practical Magic: Modern Magic for Everyday Use in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
Very Practical Magic: Modern Magic for Everyday Use by Nicola Kelleher is an interesting spellbook, to say the least. People interested in all different kinds of magic will be able to find something useful in this book. I just urge people to be sure of their intent before attempting any of these. Also, some of the spells suggest or even require the use of feathers and it may be important to note that the possession of specific feather in the US is not legal (something that I just learned recently) so users might just want to be aware of it.
This short book of practical spells starts out with a small preface about the author and some basic information about when it is best to perform magic. The book explains what powers are strongest on each day of the week and by each phase of the moon. It then moves on to love spells but explains that even with these spells the caster can not force anyone to love them and should not attempt to do so. The spells for the home go over every subject from protection and cleaning to even selling and finding your dream home.
No starter spellbook (and that is exactly what this is) would be complete without a section on bringing more wealth toward the user so long as it is not for greed. It contains spells to help bring new friends to you and cultivate current friendships. There is even a version of the Witch’s Ladder toward the back of the book as well. For all the pet lovers there are spells to protect or heal a pet who is sick, yet it encourages readers not to forgo proper medical care. No matter what the reader classifies themselves as or who their patron god/goddess (if applicable) is this book contains a spell for everyone.
What I liked best is that the spells are simple and could easily be adapted for a specific use. I also really liked the list of crystals, herbs, oils, and candles at the back of the book. These lists are a great reference for anyone who wants to create their own spells or needs substitutions for an unavailable item. There was just one thing that I did not like at all, a spell I did not agree with. The spell titled Nail Yourself a Lover encourages filing your nails into a tea that you will serve someone else. This just feels completely wrong to me and gross, not to mention I am not even sure if it is legal.
While I can not suggest an age range for this but there is a clear group of people this book is meant for. The main requirement is that the reader must believe in Magic (not the slight-of-hand type) but real magic. I give this book a rating of 3 out of 4. The title is correct in saying that this is a book of very practical magic. Most of the spells have very few ingredients or requirements and do not take long to perform. I would have liked to see pictures of the crystals along with their descriptions in the back of the book to make it better and less likely for errors to occur.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
This short book of practical spells starts out with a small preface about the author and some basic information about when it is best to perform magic. The book explains what powers are strongest on each day of the week and by each phase of the moon. It then moves on to love spells but explains that even with these spells the caster can not force anyone to love them and should not attempt to do so. The spells for the home go over every subject from protection and cleaning to even selling and finding your dream home.
No starter spellbook (and that is exactly what this is) would be complete without a section on bringing more wealth toward the user so long as it is not for greed. It contains spells to help bring new friends to you and cultivate current friendships. There is even a version of the Witch’s Ladder toward the back of the book as well. For all the pet lovers there are spells to protect or heal a pet who is sick, yet it encourages readers not to forgo proper medical care. No matter what the reader classifies themselves as or who their patron god/goddess (if applicable) is this book contains a spell for everyone.
What I liked best is that the spells are simple and could easily be adapted for a specific use. I also really liked the list of crystals, herbs, oils, and candles at the back of the book. These lists are a great reference for anyone who wants to create their own spells or needs substitutions for an unavailable item. There was just one thing that I did not like at all, a spell I did not agree with. The spell titled Nail Yourself a Lover encourages filing your nails into a tea that you will serve someone else. This just feels completely wrong to me and gross, not to mention I am not even sure if it is legal.
While I can not suggest an age range for this but there is a clear group of people this book is meant for. The main requirement is that the reader must believe in Magic (not the slight-of-hand type) but real magic. I give this book a rating of 3 out of 4. The title is correct in saying that this is a book of very practical magic. Most of the spells have very few ingredients or requirements and do not take long to perform. I would have liked to see pictures of the crystals along with their descriptions in the back of the book to make it better and less likely for errors to occur.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Bubble Puppy - Play and Learn HD
Education and Games
App
It’s a personal play date with Bubble Puppy! Send your child swimming into a fin-tastic play date...
Shoppers Stop: Online Fashion Shopping App India
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
Shopping made easy with the Shopper’s Stop mobile app! Now shop latest offers in fashion and...
Puppies, Whopping Puppies - furry fun for kids!
Book and Entertainment
App
Whopping Puppies is a very simple book & game application for small kids and toddlers, containing...