Search
Search results
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight (2020) in Movies
Nov 13, 2020
Condemnable for the dubbing alone
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight is a Polish horror film about a group of technology dependent youths visiting an offline summer camp who are terrorised by a danger lurking in the woods.
The film follows a small group centred around Zosia (Julia Wieniawa), as they head out from the camp on a 3 day trek into the woods and encounter some very unfriendly locals. I’m afraid that from the very start, there’s nothing about this film that is particularly original. Pretty much every classic slasher horror is noticeably referenced here, from Friday the 13th to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and everything in between. It even drifts into sci-fi at one point. Some might say this is a homage to these films, but for me it was just a blatant copy. From the hillbilly bad guys in wooden cabins to the use of a machete, it all just felt so unoriginal. There was nothing at all in this that didn’t remind me of another, much better film. And that’s not even taking into account all of the clichéd horror movie tropes that are thrown in throughout - I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve seen dismembered deer/wildlife and phone batteries that are conveniently dying to name but a few, and Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight can’t seem to avoid these.
Despite this, there are some (very few) positives. The score is surprisingly atmospheric and dramatic, and works so well to build some much needed tension. The practical special effects, at least in the death scenes, are also good and there’s a pretty decent amount of gore. However this is pretty much the only good things I can say about this film. Whilst the death effects might be good, the creature/enemy effects are severely lacking and they look very cheap and second rate. It doesn’t help that their characters are rather silly and have no real purpose other than to kill. And even their murdering appears to be nonsensical and sporadic – for instance in one scene killing a character who’s outside yet completely ignoring those in tents a mere metres away. The youths don’t fare any better when it comes to characterisation either. They are your usual slasher movie group and aside from Zosia none have any real depth or back story, and for the most part they don’t live enough for you to care anyway.
But even considering all of the above, by far the worst crime of this film is the fact that it’s dubbed. Dubbing is one of my personal pet peeves. I cannot abide watching anything where the sound doesn’t sync with actors mouths moving, especially when the dubbing isn’t intended as tongue in cheek. And worse still, Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight features the most cringeworthy dubbing I’ve ever heard, with some very stereotypical American voiceovers that are made worse by the cheesy script that tries to shoehorn in as many geeky pop cultures references that it can find. Within 10 minutes I’d had enough and I do wonder if this film could’ve been much more bearable has it just been subtitled instead.
Dubbing aside, this film is still pretty poor and riddled with so many clichés that you can barely discern any truly original ideas. If you want to watch a horror film like this, you’d be better off watching the classic originals.
The film follows a small group centred around Zosia (Julia Wieniawa), as they head out from the camp on a 3 day trek into the woods and encounter some very unfriendly locals. I’m afraid that from the very start, there’s nothing about this film that is particularly original. Pretty much every classic slasher horror is noticeably referenced here, from Friday the 13th to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and everything in between. It even drifts into sci-fi at one point. Some might say this is a homage to these films, but for me it was just a blatant copy. From the hillbilly bad guys in wooden cabins to the use of a machete, it all just felt so unoriginal. There was nothing at all in this that didn’t remind me of another, much better film. And that’s not even taking into account all of the clichéd horror movie tropes that are thrown in throughout - I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve seen dismembered deer/wildlife and phone batteries that are conveniently dying to name but a few, and Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight can’t seem to avoid these.
Despite this, there are some (very few) positives. The score is surprisingly atmospheric and dramatic, and works so well to build some much needed tension. The practical special effects, at least in the death scenes, are also good and there’s a pretty decent amount of gore. However this is pretty much the only good things I can say about this film. Whilst the death effects might be good, the creature/enemy effects are severely lacking and they look very cheap and second rate. It doesn’t help that their characters are rather silly and have no real purpose other than to kill. And even their murdering appears to be nonsensical and sporadic – for instance in one scene killing a character who’s outside yet completely ignoring those in tents a mere metres away. The youths don’t fare any better when it comes to characterisation either. They are your usual slasher movie group and aside from Zosia none have any real depth or back story, and for the most part they don’t live enough for you to care anyway.
But even considering all of the above, by far the worst crime of this film is the fact that it’s dubbed. Dubbing is one of my personal pet peeves. I cannot abide watching anything where the sound doesn’t sync with actors mouths moving, especially when the dubbing isn’t intended as tongue in cheek. And worse still, Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight features the most cringeworthy dubbing I’ve ever heard, with some very stereotypical American voiceovers that are made worse by the cheesy script that tries to shoehorn in as many geeky pop cultures references that it can find. Within 10 minutes I’d had enough and I do wonder if this film could’ve been much more bearable has it just been subtitled instead.
Dubbing aside, this film is still pretty poor and riddled with so many clichés that you can barely discern any truly original ideas. If you want to watch a horror film like this, you’d be better off watching the classic originals.
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated 100 Speeches that roused the world in Books
Oct 5, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<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://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-86.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>Boy, oh boy, do I have mixed feelings about 100 Speeches That Roused the World by Colin Salter.</i></b>
The reason I picked up this book is because I have always been in love with speeches and orators. I believe that the ability to speak in front of an audience is a very powerful skill, and I admire it as such. Many great leaders and many successful people use this skill to make people listen and act in a way they want them to. That is where the true art is, and I really admire this aspect. The fact that you can listen to two or more people tell you the same thing, and only one being able to convince you to do something or believe in something they say is a true gift.
Which takes us to the second reason I picked this book up. To find out more about the people who had this ability in history and made a difference in one way or another. And for the most part, I was pleased. There are speeches of many great (and not so great) leaders out there, speeches of people that made breakthroughs in their fields, people who fought for their rights.
<b><i>But there was a pattern I noticed in these 100 speeches.</i></b>
Most of these speeches were either from the UK or USA. And most of them were presidents, prime ministers,royalty or leaders in any other way. And all their speeches were speeches during the wars. Telling their people to fight for their nations.
And I have nothing against those speeches. They were perfect for their time and they did their purpose at the time. What I had a problem with is that there were so many more important times in history when a speech was made and it represented a change.
What about all the speeches that philosophers have given in ancient Rome and Greece? For Rome, where is Julius Caesar’s speech to the senate? For Greece, how about the movement for freedom of speech? What about the speeches during humanism and renaissance? What about some of the groundbreaking speeches that scientists have given over the years?
I was a bit disappointed with the format of the book as well, as the speeches were mostly short paragraphs, followed by a full page of the author’s notes, mostly quoting the same speech again. It was very helpful to know the background of how the speech made a difference in the world, but when most of those speeches didn’t really make any difference, and I was involved in a history lesson of the most important wars in history, it wasn’t much of a fun read.
<b><i>To conclude, this book wasn’t what I was looking for, both format and content wise. The 100 Speeches mentioned in this book didn’t do enough justice for me. I believe that title is misleading, but I can also understand that some people can still learn a lot by reading it.</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://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-86.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>Boy, oh boy, do I have mixed feelings about 100 Speeches That Roused the World by Colin Salter.</i></b>
The reason I picked up this book is because I have always been in love with speeches and orators. I believe that the ability to speak in front of an audience is a very powerful skill, and I admire it as such. Many great leaders and many successful people use this skill to make people listen and act in a way they want them to. That is where the true art is, and I really admire this aspect. The fact that you can listen to two or more people tell you the same thing, and only one being able to convince you to do something or believe in something they say is a true gift.
Which takes us to the second reason I picked this book up. To find out more about the people who had this ability in history and made a difference in one way or another. And for the most part, I was pleased. There are speeches of many great (and not so great) leaders out there, speeches of people that made breakthroughs in their fields, people who fought for their rights.
<b><i>But there was a pattern I noticed in these 100 speeches.</i></b>
Most of these speeches were either from the UK or USA. And most of them were presidents, prime ministers,royalty or leaders in any other way. And all their speeches were speeches during the wars. Telling their people to fight for their nations.
And I have nothing against those speeches. They were perfect for their time and they did their purpose at the time. What I had a problem with is that there were so many more important times in history when a speech was made and it represented a change.
What about all the speeches that philosophers have given in ancient Rome and Greece? For Rome, where is Julius Caesar’s speech to the senate? For Greece, how about the movement for freedom of speech? What about the speeches during humanism and renaissance? What about some of the groundbreaking speeches that scientists have given over the years?
I was a bit disappointed with the format of the book as well, as the speeches were mostly short paragraphs, followed by a full page of the author’s notes, mostly quoting the same speech again. It was very helpful to know the background of how the speech made a difference in the world, but when most of those speeches didn’t really make any difference, and I was involved in a history lesson of the most important wars in history, it wasn’t much of a fun read.
<b><i>To conclude, this book wasn’t what I was looking for, both format and content wise. The 100 Speeches mentioned in this book didn’t do enough justice for me. I believe that title is misleading, but I can also understand that some people can still learn a lot by reading it.</i></b>
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Oct 7, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Cloverfield Paradox is the third and (at time of writing) the last Cloverfield film and it's main purpose is to explain where Clover and his friends come from. Does it do this in an easy to follow, straight forward way that fits easily into the already established Cloverfield universe? Hell no.
The first film was a found footage monster movie and the second film was a psychological thriller that was loosely linked to the first so naturally the third film is a hard Sci-Fi set in the near future. The earth has used up most of it's resources and everyone is nearly at war, the last hope is the Cloverfield space-station which has the 'Shepard' beam, an experimental particle beam that, if it works, will produce an endless supply of energy. The lack of resources and looming war are the only problems, there are no monsters and there never were.
The Cloverfield Paradox mainly follows the crew of the space station and quickly turns into a Sci-Fi horror in a similar vain to 'Event Horizon'. Basically the crew activate the Shepard Beam, it works then crashes and the earth disappears. Then strange things start to happen. At the same time something happens on earth, there is an attack on America and a few people run around trying to find out what happens and one hides in a bunker similar to the one in 10 Cloverfield Lane. Meanwhile the crew of the Cloverfield try to find out where the earth is.
As a Sci-Fi, the Cloverfield Paradox works well, it uses just enough jargon and theoretical physics and as a horror it works well, killing off the cast in weird and wonderful ways. And as an explanation for Clover well SPOILER that's what attacked Earth, of course this is only reviled right at the end and there is no explanation to how they got to the past in the other film's. Except there is, about twenty minuets into the film, after everything has been set up but before everything goes wrong there is a news program shown on a monitor whilst the crew begin to start their experiments. The news show is interviewing the author of a book called 'The Cloverfield Paradox' and, in the interview the author explains everything from what is going to happen to how Clover and the other monsters appear on earth even though know one in the future knows anything about them, so pay attention.
One thing the all three Cloverfield films did well was all of the extra stuff. The original film started with tease trailers, infomercial's form company's seen in the film and fake news reels. This kind of marketing continued for all three films and other information was made available including one big link between Cloverfield and the Cloverfield Paradox. The last scene of the first film, the scene that was set before everything that happened with the couple by the beach shows something falling from the sky in the background, this is part of the Cloverfield space station.
With the revelation that the creatures now exist all through time a fourth film was rumoured - Overlord- however, even though the film was made by the same company and the same people it was never part of the Cloverfield universe and is/was meant to be the start of it's own franchise. Even though it could easily fit even as a ret con.
The first film was a found footage monster movie and the second film was a psychological thriller that was loosely linked to the first so naturally the third film is a hard Sci-Fi set in the near future. The earth has used up most of it's resources and everyone is nearly at war, the last hope is the Cloverfield space-station which has the 'Shepard' beam, an experimental particle beam that, if it works, will produce an endless supply of energy. The lack of resources and looming war are the only problems, there are no monsters and there never were.
The Cloverfield Paradox mainly follows the crew of the space station and quickly turns into a Sci-Fi horror in a similar vain to 'Event Horizon'. Basically the crew activate the Shepard Beam, it works then crashes and the earth disappears. Then strange things start to happen. At the same time something happens on earth, there is an attack on America and a few people run around trying to find out what happens and one hides in a bunker similar to the one in 10 Cloverfield Lane. Meanwhile the crew of the Cloverfield try to find out where the earth is.
As a Sci-Fi, the Cloverfield Paradox works well, it uses just enough jargon and theoretical physics and as a horror it works well, killing off the cast in weird and wonderful ways. And as an explanation for Clover well SPOILER that's what attacked Earth, of course this is only reviled right at the end and there is no explanation to how they got to the past in the other film's. Except there is, about twenty minuets into the film, after everything has been set up but before everything goes wrong there is a news program shown on a monitor whilst the crew begin to start their experiments. The news show is interviewing the author of a book called 'The Cloverfield Paradox' and, in the interview the author explains everything from what is going to happen to how Clover and the other monsters appear on earth even though know one in the future knows anything about them, so pay attention.
One thing the all three Cloverfield films did well was all of the extra stuff. The original film started with tease trailers, infomercial's form company's seen in the film and fake news reels. This kind of marketing continued for all three films and other information was made available including one big link between Cloverfield and the Cloverfield Paradox. The last scene of the first film, the scene that was set before everything that happened with the couple by the beach shows something falling from the sky in the background, this is part of the Cloverfield space station.
With the revelation that the creatures now exist all through time a fourth film was rumoured - Overlord- however, even though the film was made by the same company and the same people it was never part of the Cloverfield universe and is/was meant to be the start of it's own franchise. Even though it could easily fit even as a ret con.
Sarah (7799 KP) rated The Boys - Season 2 in TV
Oct 10, 2020
Excellent, but not quite as good as the first
For me, the first series of The Boys was a brilliant surprise and the wait for this second series has been a rather frustrating and impatient experience, especially as Amazon decided not to release the entire series at once. Fortunately by the time the credits rolled on the series 2 finale, it was definitely worth the wait.
This second series follows on from the reveal at the end of the series 1 finale, and features more dodgy supes and the Boys trying to take down both them and Vought.
Series 2 is very similar to the first. It’s just as rude and crude as before, full of dark and often hilarious humour and the blood and gore ante seems to have been upped considerably. It definitely provides a refreshing change to the Marvel universe and the majority of other superheroes that stick to their PG or 12A ratings. This has a very smart and funny take on politics and also on pop culture and the media, and even superhero films don’t escape this unscathed when we see The Seven making their own movie.
The cast are as fantastic as they were in the first series. Antony Starr is outstanding as Homelander, playing the homicidal maniac with some semblance of a heart – after 2 series I think I both love and hate him in equal parts, he’s such a complex character. It was very nice to see Dominique McElligott get more to work with as Maeve as well and to see more depth to her character. The rest of the cast and the new additions do very well too - Goran Visjnic, Shawn Ashmore and Jim Beaver are especially welcome, and it was very clever of Eric Kripke to name Beaver’s character as Robert Singer, the same name as his character from Supernatural.
Despite this, I don’t think this series is perfect and I do think it’s a slight baby step down from the rather excellent first series. Some of the episodes feel like they drag a little, although they do end up picking up towards the end (usually with a bang). The final two episodes definitely try and make up for this and I think the finale itself was especially good as we get to see Stormfront get her much deserved comeuppance. I also think some of the interactions between Starlight and the other characters are slightly badly scripted and feel a little forced and cringeworthy, but I’m not entirely sure if this is on purpose to show how awkwardly Starlight interacts with others.
The Deep has also been done a disservice in this series. He starts off brilliantly and the scene with the whale in the third episode is downright genius, however as the series moves on we see less and less of him and he’s sorely missed. Admittedly when he does pop up in the later episodes he has some cracking lines, but it’s not enough. I also think that Shawn Ashmore as Lamplighter was fantastic for the brief time we saw him, and I really wish he’d been kept around for much longer.
The Boys series 2 is overall a very good series that for the most part lives up to it’s predecessor and after the final few scenes in episode 8, definitely leaves us crying out for more.
This second series follows on from the reveal at the end of the series 1 finale, and features more dodgy supes and the Boys trying to take down both them and Vought.
Series 2 is very similar to the first. It’s just as rude and crude as before, full of dark and often hilarious humour and the blood and gore ante seems to have been upped considerably. It definitely provides a refreshing change to the Marvel universe and the majority of other superheroes that stick to their PG or 12A ratings. This has a very smart and funny take on politics and also on pop culture and the media, and even superhero films don’t escape this unscathed when we see The Seven making their own movie.
The cast are as fantastic as they were in the first series. Antony Starr is outstanding as Homelander, playing the homicidal maniac with some semblance of a heart – after 2 series I think I both love and hate him in equal parts, he’s such a complex character. It was very nice to see Dominique McElligott get more to work with as Maeve as well and to see more depth to her character. The rest of the cast and the new additions do very well too - Goran Visjnic, Shawn Ashmore and Jim Beaver are especially welcome, and it was very clever of Eric Kripke to name Beaver’s character as Robert Singer, the same name as his character from Supernatural.
Despite this, I don’t think this series is perfect and I do think it’s a slight baby step down from the rather excellent first series. Some of the episodes feel like they drag a little, although they do end up picking up towards the end (usually with a bang). The final two episodes definitely try and make up for this and I think the finale itself was especially good as we get to see Stormfront get her much deserved comeuppance. I also think some of the interactions between Starlight and the other characters are slightly badly scripted and feel a little forced and cringeworthy, but I’m not entirely sure if this is on purpose to show how awkwardly Starlight interacts with others.
The Deep has also been done a disservice in this series. He starts off brilliantly and the scene with the whale in the third episode is downright genius, however as the series moves on we see less and less of him and he’s sorely missed. Admittedly when he does pop up in the later episodes he has some cracking lines, but it’s not enough. I also think that Shawn Ashmore as Lamplighter was fantastic for the brief time we saw him, and I really wish he’d been kept around for much longer.
The Boys series 2 is overall a very good series that for the most part lives up to it’s predecessor and after the final few scenes in episode 8, definitely leaves us crying out for more.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Hulk Continues to Smash...and I'm Here For All of it
When an artificial intelligence outthinks its creator and forms itself into dozens of destructive robots, Earth's mightiest heroes come together once again to put a stop to the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated The Informer (2019) in Movies
Sep 10, 2019
A real hidden gem.
I went into this film knowing very little about it, other than the two-line blurb on my local cinema's website. Released to a muted fanfare, this twisty-turny crime drama is a surprisingly gripping and taut thriller, with some stand-out performances from the cast.
Joel Kinnaman plays Pete Koslow, an ex-con that we soon discover is working undercover for the FBI to help take down a mob boss in New York City. Not much is known (or, frustratingly, revealed) about Koslow's backstory, but Kinnaman plays the part very well. It's not as in-depth as maybe it could've been, but his personal arc is a fresh and original spin on a tried-and-tested formula, and it is, at times, compelling to watch.
Needless to say, Koslow's arrangement with the FBI goes sour before too long, and he's left alone in prison with multiple groups of enemies with their own agendas trying to kill him. The second half of the film, where the twists and turns and clever plotting flows more freely, reminded me of Will Smith's "Enemy of the State" and Liam Neeson's "A Walk Among The Tombstones", in terms of the complex approach and execution to resolving a seemingly inescapable situation.
The story was told to great effect, with the gritty tone and the deliberate pacing perfectly suiting this competent thriller.
Ana de Armas is terrific as Koslow's long-suffering and admiringly-loyal partner, Sofia. She has a look of naivety and innocence throughout, with her perma-watering wide eyes and youthful good looks, yet she is as tough as they come and the perfect match for Kinnaman's lead.
Clive Owen also deserves a mention for another consistent performance, despite him being woefully underused here. He steals every scene he's in, playing a menacing background antagonist incredibly well.
For me, this movie was let down by two things. First, its ending, which felt sudden and rushed, as if it stopped mid-sentence. It's not the kind of film that warrants a sequel, nor was it, I imagine, made with the intention of one. So to leave so many questions unanswered serves little purpose and ultimately leaves you disappointed after what was otherwise a very, very clever film.
Secondly, Rosamund Pike's performance left a lot to be desired. Because of her outstanding lack of on-screen charisma, you never truly connect with her character, Agent Wilcox. Her handling of Koslow's operation felt hollow. She showed no emotional range whatsoever, and wore the same expression throughout the entire film. Consequently, the journey of her character and the impact her decisions have on both other people, and the movie's eventual outcome, felt empty and pointless.
Despite that, this is a real hidden gem. As I noted earlier, this wasn't what you would call a "big" release. It came out under the radar and, as a result, was the subject of very few expectations. But what you have here is an intelligent thriller that provides an original take on a typical storyline that delivers in almost every way it intended to.
This is the film you stream off Netflix on a Friday night while eating a takeaway after a hard week at work.
Joel Kinnaman plays Pete Koslow, an ex-con that we soon discover is working undercover for the FBI to help take down a mob boss in New York City. Not much is known (or, frustratingly, revealed) about Koslow's backstory, but Kinnaman plays the part very well. It's not as in-depth as maybe it could've been, but his personal arc is a fresh and original spin on a tried-and-tested formula, and it is, at times, compelling to watch.
Needless to say, Koslow's arrangement with the FBI goes sour before too long, and he's left alone in prison with multiple groups of enemies with their own agendas trying to kill him. The second half of the film, where the twists and turns and clever plotting flows more freely, reminded me of Will Smith's "Enemy of the State" and Liam Neeson's "A Walk Among The Tombstones", in terms of the complex approach and execution to resolving a seemingly inescapable situation.
The story was told to great effect, with the gritty tone and the deliberate pacing perfectly suiting this competent thriller.
Ana de Armas is terrific as Koslow's long-suffering and admiringly-loyal partner, Sofia. She has a look of naivety and innocence throughout, with her perma-watering wide eyes and youthful good looks, yet she is as tough as they come and the perfect match for Kinnaman's lead.
Clive Owen also deserves a mention for another consistent performance, despite him being woefully underused here. He steals every scene he's in, playing a menacing background antagonist incredibly well.
For me, this movie was let down by two things. First, its ending, which felt sudden and rushed, as if it stopped mid-sentence. It's not the kind of film that warrants a sequel, nor was it, I imagine, made with the intention of one. So to leave so many questions unanswered serves little purpose and ultimately leaves you disappointed after what was otherwise a very, very clever film.
Secondly, Rosamund Pike's performance left a lot to be desired. Because of her outstanding lack of on-screen charisma, you never truly connect with her character, Agent Wilcox. Her handling of Koslow's operation felt hollow. She showed no emotional range whatsoever, and wore the same expression throughout the entire film. Consequently, the journey of her character and the impact her decisions have on both other people, and the movie's eventual outcome, felt empty and pointless.
Despite that, this is a real hidden gem. As I noted earlier, this wasn't what you would call a "big" release. It came out under the radar and, as a result, was the subject of very few expectations. But what you have here is an intelligent thriller that provides an original take on a typical storyline that delivers in almost every way it intended to.
This is the film you stream off Netflix on a Friday night while eating a takeaway after a hard week at work.
PDF Max 5 - Fill forms, edit & annotate PDFs, sign documents
Productivity and Business
App
PDF Max is a desktop class PDF app for reading, annotating or signing PDF documents on your...
Kids Yogaverse: I AM SUN, I AM MOON
Health & Fitness and Book
App
Kids Yogaverse introduces a complete Sun and Moon yoga flow just for kids! I AM SUN, I AM MOON...
Quotes Alarm -Quote of the Day
Health & Fitness and Photo & Video
App
Would you like to wake up, every day, inspired and motivated? This app is serious about happiness,...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) Nov 15, 2020
Sarah (7799 KP) Nov 16, 2020