Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Tree of Life (2011) in Movies
Apr 19, 2019
Challenge yourself. Give this a watch!
I have to admit to not having seen many films directed by Terrence Malick. Not by choice, just hadn't gotten around to it. I watched The Thin Red Line when it was released, but thought it was inferior to Saving Private Ryan which was released around the same time. I will give a rewatch soon.
I saw another review which said to describe this film would be like trying to describe the color blue to someone who was blind. A basically impossible task.
The easiest way for me would be to mention other movies, so if you took parts of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mother!, Revolutionary Road and Stand By Me you might start to come close to the interesting weave of imagery and story which conjoin this film.
Loosely speaking, it's about a family with 3 young boys in Texas in the 1950s. Their relationships, their troubles, their triumphs, the small insignificant moments in their lives combined with the very important ones. Throw in scenes of the creation of the universe, dinosaurs and unusual images of the Earth itself you'll finally start to maybe understand the complexity of this film.
Of course, this is a film like 2001 or Mother in which some will say it is crap or there is no meaning beyond what is displayed onscreen, but I would beg to differ. I respect everyone's opinions, but strive to seek out films that make me think a little and make me ponder during and after the end credits are complete and this film will do that for sure.
I am not a religious person, but you don't need to be to appreciate the vivid imagery in this film. I believe Malick supports differing views whether you believe in God or not.
In short, in a world of summer blockbusters just beyond the horizon, I would challenge you to enjoy those films as they have their place, but also challenge yourself with something rich.
I know I will be finding Days of Heaven and Badlands to get more Malick in the weeks ahead.
I saw another review which said to describe this film would be like trying to describe the color blue to someone who was blind. A basically impossible task.
The easiest way for me would be to mention other movies, so if you took parts of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mother!, Revolutionary Road and Stand By Me you might start to come close to the interesting weave of imagery and story which conjoin this film.
Loosely speaking, it's about a family with 3 young boys in Texas in the 1950s. Their relationships, their troubles, their triumphs, the small insignificant moments in their lives combined with the very important ones. Throw in scenes of the creation of the universe, dinosaurs and unusual images of the Earth itself you'll finally start to maybe understand the complexity of this film.
Of course, this is a film like 2001 or Mother in which some will say it is crap or there is no meaning beyond what is displayed onscreen, but I would beg to differ. I respect everyone's opinions, but strive to seek out films that make me think a little and make me ponder during and after the end credits are complete and this film will do that for sure.
I am not a religious person, but you don't need to be to appreciate the vivid imagery in this film. I believe Malick supports differing views whether you believe in God or not.
In short, in a world of summer blockbusters just beyond the horizon, I would challenge you to enjoy those films as they have their place, but also challenge yourself with something rich.
I know I will be finding Days of Heaven and Badlands to get more Malick in the weeks ahead.
Dana (24 KP) rated Burned (Burned, #1) in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I honestly didn't know how I would feel about this book. I haven't been having the best week or so, so I didn't necessarily want to read something too heavy. While this book did have a lot of heavy themes, it wasn't too dark for me, which I was glad about.
The rest of this review will have some spoilers, so read at your own peril.
I didn't really know much about this book as I was going into it. My roommate gave it to me on a recommendation, so I read it the next day and I really enjoyed it. I know it came out ages ago, but I don't think I was really emotionally mature enough to really appreciate the story. Overall, I am glad I waited until I was a bit older.
Even though it is close to 550 pages, it doesn't feel that long because of the way it is set up. The poetry gives it a fresh perspective and a very interesting storytelling perspective. I absolutely loved the formatting, especially the shapes of the poems.
This book talks a lot about religion, abuse (specially religious and familial abuse), independence, sex, and relationships in a very mature, yet approachable way.
This book supports the idea that you should get help from someone when you need it-even if it is not the authorities.
It was interesting to see Pattyn's development throughout the book, as heartbreaking as it was. She starts off as such a timid, rule-abiding girl, and then turns into someone with her own thoughts and morals. I feel like that as she was able to experience more, she grew into her own person to an extent.
I love Aunt Jeanette-she just wants what is best for Pattyn.
The ending crushed me. I just wanted Pattyn to be happy with Ethan, but no. It just had to come to a horrible end, didn't it?
Sorry this review is pretty short. I can't really find all the right ways to say what I'm thinking about this book.
Overall, I enjoyed the book and I think I will check out more of Ellen Hopkins's books.
The rest of this review will have some spoilers, so read at your own peril.
I didn't really know much about this book as I was going into it. My roommate gave it to me on a recommendation, so I read it the next day and I really enjoyed it. I know it came out ages ago, but I don't think I was really emotionally mature enough to really appreciate the story. Overall, I am glad I waited until I was a bit older.
Even though it is close to 550 pages, it doesn't feel that long because of the way it is set up. The poetry gives it a fresh perspective and a very interesting storytelling perspective. I absolutely loved the formatting, especially the shapes of the poems.
This book talks a lot about religion, abuse (specially religious and familial abuse), independence, sex, and relationships in a very mature, yet approachable way.
This book supports the idea that you should get help from someone when you need it-even if it is not the authorities.
It was interesting to see Pattyn's development throughout the book, as heartbreaking as it was. She starts off as such a timid, rule-abiding girl, and then turns into someone with her own thoughts and morals. I feel like that as she was able to experience more, she grew into her own person to an extent.
I love Aunt Jeanette-she just wants what is best for Pattyn.
The ending crushed me. I just wanted Pattyn to be happy with Ethan, but no. It just had to come to a horrible end, didn't it?
Sorry this review is pretty short. I can't really find all the right ways to say what I'm thinking about this book.
Overall, I enjoyed the book and I think I will check out more of Ellen Hopkins's books.
Joelene Marie (28 KP) rated The Black Witch in Books
Oct 1, 2018
Wow! This story, these characters... just wow. Seriously got me right in the feels. There's quite a bit of controversy surrounding this book and i think it's for the wrong reasons. This book isn't racist or any of the other things it's been called, not in and of itself. Does it contain racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia? in spades! Religious zealots, oppression, and just plain ignorant prejudice and discrimination? Oh, absolutely! At times heartbreaking and difficult to read? Definitely! But at its core this is a book about hope. It's about moving past preconceived notions of others based on any of the labels used to divide and coming together. It's about looking beyond outward appearance and seeing the person inside. There are obvious parallels between the book and reality because the author was trying to make a point, not that she or her story are racist or condone these behaviors but the exact opposite, that it is wrong and that we could do amazing things if we quit using labels that divide us, whether it's race, religion, gender, sexuality, occupation, ability, class, country of origin, political affiliation, etc. Those are only labels, they don't define any of us nor should they.
This book is beautifully written, with very well developed characters that u come to love and plenty u despise, in a world very similar to our own in different ways. It's emotional. It's wonderful. It has an important message. I am so glad that I read it for myself instead of just going on the negative reviews and jumping on the hate bandwagon. Thinking for yourself instead of believing what you're told about something is a pretty strong message in the story as well. I absolutely loved it and was disappointed when I got to the end. I implore everyone to please take the time to read it yourself and see how it makes you feel instead of avoiding it on some misguided principle after reading a bad review written by someone who either didn't get the obvious messages within The Black Witch or was already prejudiced against it themselves. Seriously, it's worth it.
This book is beautifully written, with very well developed characters that u come to love and plenty u despise, in a world very similar to our own in different ways. It's emotional. It's wonderful. It has an important message. I am so glad that I read it for myself instead of just going on the negative reviews and jumping on the hate bandwagon. Thinking for yourself instead of believing what you're told about something is a pretty strong message in the story as well. I absolutely loved it and was disappointed when I got to the end. I implore everyone to please take the time to read it yourself and see how it makes you feel instead of avoiding it on some misguided principle after reading a bad review written by someone who either didn't get the obvious messages within The Black Witch or was already prejudiced against it themselves. Seriously, it's worth it.
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated Vox in Books
Nov 4, 2018
Book review by Cari Mayhew. Rating 7/10.
A country where women can only speak 100 words a day – a novel concept for a dystopian thriller! The protagonist’s bitterness was palpable, and there were huge stakes at play, making for an intense read.
This book is set in the USA in the near future. A religious party is in power which sees women as only caregivers. Every woman and girl wears a counter on their wrist, counting the number of words spoken from midnight to midnight each day, delivering a powerful electric shock if they are one syllable over their 100-word limit. Ironically, the central character, Jean, is a linguist.
The action of the main storyline starts when the president’s brother, develops Wernicke’s aphasia as a result of brain damage following a skiing accident. This condition renders the victim unable to convey meaning in their speech, allowing them to only speak gibberish. With her knowledge of neuro-linguistics, Jean is uniquely placed to be persuaded to return to the lab to develop a remedy. Only, when she does, she discovers there’s a lot more going on behind the scenes – and she’s one of a small few with the power to save the day!
As you’d imagine, the female central character is extremely bitter, bitter with society and bitter with herself. She frequently looks back at how things became this way and wishes she had done more. The author does an excellent job of showing how insidiously the propaganda behind the movement swallowed up the nation. Jean sees it in her sons and daughter.
I’d very much like to believe that nothing like this would ever happen in western society, but sadly there are still some cultures in the world where women are faced with oppression.
I have mixed feelings about this book. In some ways, there was too much going on, such as Jean’s mother’s aphasia, and Jean’s extra-marital affair with her Italian crush. On the other hand, Dalcher could have done more to convey how oppressive the rule was for society at large, rather than concentrating on one woman’s experience – particularly since it was a woman for whom the rule was lifted for.
Book review from Book Blog by Cari.
A country where women can only speak 100 words a day – a novel concept for a dystopian thriller! The protagonist’s bitterness was palpable, and there were huge stakes at play, making for an intense read.
This book is set in the USA in the near future. A religious party is in power which sees women as only caregivers. Every woman and girl wears a counter on their wrist, counting the number of words spoken from midnight to midnight each day, delivering a powerful electric shock if they are one syllable over their 100-word limit. Ironically, the central character, Jean, is a linguist.
The action of the main storyline starts when the president’s brother, develops Wernicke’s aphasia as a result of brain damage following a skiing accident. This condition renders the victim unable to convey meaning in their speech, allowing them to only speak gibberish. With her knowledge of neuro-linguistics, Jean is uniquely placed to be persuaded to return to the lab to develop a remedy. Only, when she does, she discovers there’s a lot more going on behind the scenes – and she’s one of a small few with the power to save the day!
As you’d imagine, the female central character is extremely bitter, bitter with society and bitter with herself. She frequently looks back at how things became this way and wishes she had done more. The author does an excellent job of showing how insidiously the propaganda behind the movement swallowed up the nation. Jean sees it in her sons and daughter.
I’d very much like to believe that nothing like this would ever happen in western society, but sadly there are still some cultures in the world where women are faced with oppression.
I have mixed feelings about this book. In some ways, there was too much going on, such as Jean’s mother’s aphasia, and Jean’s extra-marital affair with her Italian crush. On the other hand, Dalcher could have done more to convey how oppressive the rule was for society at large, rather than concentrating on one woman’s experience – particularly since it was a woman for whom the rule was lifted for.
Book review from Book Blog by Cari.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alien 3 (1992) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: How do you follow up two of the best sci-fi films or all time? This struggles to keep up with the atmosphere created in the first two. It offers nothing new to the series either. As a stand-alone film this would struggle to be a good sci-fi thriller. It’s only positive I can think of were a couple of surprise deaths. (5/10)
Actor Review: Sigourney Weaver – Ripley back to kick the alien’s arse. Sigourney has created one of the biggest icons in female cinema, but this is not the chapter anyone would be remembering. (6/10)
ripley
Actor Review: Charles S. Dutton – Dillon leader of the religious movement on in the prison. One of the good guys who protects Ripley from the bad prisoners. He does an ok job but doesn’t have enough to work with. (6/10)
dance
Actor Review: Charles Dance – Medical officer with a dark past on the road to recovery. Good supporting role is used well to create a good connection between Ripley and the prisoners. (6/10)
Director Review: David Fincher – The great director disowned this film after it got changed post production and I don’t blame him. (4/10)
Action: Slow moving action throughout. (6/10)
Sci-Fi: Take out the Alien it offers very little in the world of sci-fi. (5/10)
Thriller: Not very thrilling compared to previous offering. (5/10)
Special Effects: Poor special effects too. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Settings: A prison on a planet with nowhere to run creating a great isolation setting for this sci-fi horror. (9/10)
Suggestion: I only say try because it makes the first two look even better and it is nice to see how the characters you grew to love, well their next chapter. (Try It)
Best Part: Lead scene.
Worst Part: Loses suspense element.
Action Scene of the Film: Final scene.
Kill Of The Film: Clemens
Oscar Chances: Nominated for one Oscar for visual effects
Chances of Sequel: Did get a sequel.
Overall: Poor addition to the franchise.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/01/29/alien-3-1992/
Actor Review: Sigourney Weaver – Ripley back to kick the alien’s arse. Sigourney has created one of the biggest icons in female cinema, but this is not the chapter anyone would be remembering. (6/10)
ripley
Actor Review: Charles S. Dutton – Dillon leader of the religious movement on in the prison. One of the good guys who protects Ripley from the bad prisoners. He does an ok job but doesn’t have enough to work with. (6/10)
dance
Actor Review: Charles Dance – Medical officer with a dark past on the road to recovery. Good supporting role is used well to create a good connection between Ripley and the prisoners. (6/10)
Director Review: David Fincher – The great director disowned this film after it got changed post production and I don’t blame him. (4/10)
Action: Slow moving action throughout. (6/10)
Sci-Fi: Take out the Alien it offers very little in the world of sci-fi. (5/10)
Thriller: Not very thrilling compared to previous offering. (5/10)
Special Effects: Poor special effects too. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Settings: A prison on a planet with nowhere to run creating a great isolation setting for this sci-fi horror. (9/10)
Suggestion: I only say try because it makes the first two look even better and it is nice to see how the characters you grew to love, well their next chapter. (Try It)
Best Part: Lead scene.
Worst Part: Loses suspense element.
Action Scene of the Film: Final scene.
Kill Of The Film: Clemens
Oscar Chances: Nominated for one Oscar for visual effects
Chances of Sequel: Did get a sequel.
Overall: Poor addition to the franchise.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/01/29/alien-3-1992/
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Door (Seventh Dimenson #1) in Books
Nov 12, 2019
Shale Snyder is a troubled teenager. Her father left her mother when she was little, she has alienated almost all of the other children around her and has problems at school. Following yet another incident she is suspended and feels totally cast adrift. At this point she finds a door and hears a voice calling her to enter...
There is quite a clever concept at the heart of this book; that the Holy Land at the time of Jesus is a sort of dimensional nexus where those who are called can travel and gain spiritual help for themselves as well as the other travellers. It is a fine blending of both science fiction and Christian concepts.
There is also much of The Pilgrim's Progress about this, with Shale's journey and the characters she meets. And although she is living near Nazareth and does encounter Jesus (and other people mentioned in the bible) the religious side is not forced but comes naturally from the narrative. There is also a fair smattering of The Wizard of Oz, as the dimensional copy of the Holy Land from 2000 years ago also contains versions of people that Shale knows from home.
The result is a book that shows how even a little faith by someone as lost as Shale can give her the will to turn her life around and make herself and those around her better people. It is a very positive message, though not gained without significant trials.
There are a couple of negatives. Sometimes the narrative thread can be a little confusing, a side-effect of the dimension-hopping aspect of the story. Also some of the characters appear to serve little purpose, but perhaps as this is the first of a series they will come into play in later books. There is also one comment from her friend Daniel (another traveller from modern-day Israel) that did concern me, I hope this is due to his personal experience rather than a theme of future books.
Overall this is an engrossing read, managing to deliver a positive Christian message without labouring the point and providing a good story arc for Shale to keep the reader invested in the story
There is quite a clever concept at the heart of this book; that the Holy Land at the time of Jesus is a sort of dimensional nexus where those who are called can travel and gain spiritual help for themselves as well as the other travellers. It is a fine blending of both science fiction and Christian concepts.
There is also much of The Pilgrim's Progress about this, with Shale's journey and the characters she meets. And although she is living near Nazareth and does encounter Jesus (and other people mentioned in the bible) the religious side is not forced but comes naturally from the narrative. There is also a fair smattering of The Wizard of Oz, as the dimensional copy of the Holy Land from 2000 years ago also contains versions of people that Shale knows from home.
The result is a book that shows how even a little faith by someone as lost as Shale can give her the will to turn her life around and make herself and those around her better people. It is a very positive message, though not gained without significant trials.
There are a couple of negatives. Sometimes the narrative thread can be a little confusing, a side-effect of the dimension-hopping aspect of the story. Also some of the characters appear to serve little purpose, but perhaps as this is the first of a series they will come into play in later books. There is also one comment from her friend Daniel (another traveller from modern-day Israel) that did concern me, I hope this is due to his personal experience rather than a theme of future books.
Overall this is an engrossing read, managing to deliver a positive Christian message without labouring the point and providing a good story arc for Shale to keep the reader invested in the story
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Exodus: Gods and Kings is a new movie directed by Ridley Scott.
With other great films under his belt such as Alien, Gladiator, GI Jane, and many many more, I had high hopes for this film.
The cast includes Christian Bale as Moses, Ben Kingsley as Nun, Joel Edgerton as Ramses, John Turturro as Seti, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and Aaron Paul as Joshua.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes long, I actually FELT the movie dragging in places, and yet I was less than thrilled with the ending.
The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie. During scenes where the 3D should have been a major asset to the film, enhancing the viewing experience, and drawing the audience into the story, it really didn’t add anything to the story, nor did it seem to add any “wow factor”.
Being completely non-religious myself, I cannot speak to many of the other seemingly negative comments regarding the films lack of “following the true story”, but I can say that the story presented was rather…. Lackluster.
In previews it seemed as if the whole movie would be set on a grand grand scale, and that it was worth paying to see on the big screen.
In actuality, while the movie does seem to be set on a grand scale, it just didn’t grab me in enough, didn’t capture my feelings and make me root for one side or the other, didn’t make me CARE enough about the characters or the story to want to bother to see it again, on the big screen or even on the tv.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “horrible”‘ or even “bad”, but I couldn’t tell someone “this is a movie you simply MUST SEE on the big screen”, either.
If I’d have paid to see it, I’d have been annoyed.
The best summation that I might be able to give this movie is…. “Meh”.
I’d give this movie a reluctant 2 out of 5 stars, and only as many as 2 to give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt.
With other great films under his belt such as Alien, Gladiator, GI Jane, and many many more, I had high hopes for this film.
The cast includes Christian Bale as Moses, Ben Kingsley as Nun, Joel Edgerton as Ramses, John Turturro as Seti, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and Aaron Paul as Joshua.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes long, I actually FELT the movie dragging in places, and yet I was less than thrilled with the ending.
The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie. During scenes where the 3D should have been a major asset to the film, enhancing the viewing experience, and drawing the audience into the story, it really didn’t add anything to the story, nor did it seem to add any “wow factor”.
Being completely non-religious myself, I cannot speak to many of the other seemingly negative comments regarding the films lack of “following the true story”, but I can say that the story presented was rather…. Lackluster.
In previews it seemed as if the whole movie would be set on a grand grand scale, and that it was worth paying to see on the big screen.
In actuality, while the movie does seem to be set on a grand scale, it just didn’t grab me in enough, didn’t capture my feelings and make me root for one side or the other, didn’t make me CARE enough about the characters or the story to want to bother to see it again, on the big screen or even on the tv.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “horrible”‘ or even “bad”, but I couldn’t tell someone “this is a movie you simply MUST SEE on the big screen”, either.
If I’d have paid to see it, I’d have been annoyed.
The best summation that I might be able to give this movie is…. “Meh”.
I’d give this movie a reluctant 2 out of 5 stars, and only as many as 2 to give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt.
Amanda Palmer recommended In the Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel in Music (curated)
Butch Vig recommended track In The Sun by Joseph Arthur in Come to Where I'm From by Joseph Arthur in Music (curated)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Rasputin, the Mad Monk (1966) in Movies
Nov 10, 2020
Mad Monk
Rasputin, The Mad Monk- is a entertaining horror film.
The story is largely fictionalized, although some of the events leading up to Rasputin's assassination are very loosely based on Prince Yusupov's account of the story. For legal reasons (Yusupov was still alive when the film was released), the character of Yusupov was replaced by Ivan (Matthews).
Christopher Lee play as Grigori Rasputin, the Russian peasant-mystic who gained great influence with the Tsars prior to the Russian Revolution.
The emphasis is on Rasputin's terrifying powers both to work magic and to seduce women.
Rasputin the Mad Monk was filmed back-to-back in 1965 with Dracula: Prince of Darkness, using the same sets at Hammer's Bray Studios. Lee, Matthews, Shelley and Farmer appeared in both films. In some markets, it was released on a double feature with The Reptile.
It was the third collaboration between Christopher Lee and Don Sharp, following The Devil Ship Pirates and The Face of Fu Manchu.
Lee later said, "The only way you can present him is the way he was historically described. He was a lecher and a drunk, and definitely had healing powers. So he was a saint and a sinner... There were very few good sides to him. Rasputin is one of the best things I’ve done. "
"I think it's the best thing Chris Lee's ever done," said Sharp in 1992. "Rasputin was supposed to have had this ability to hypnotise people.
The original ending had the lifeless Rasputin lying on the ice with his hands held up to his forehead in benediction. However, it was considered controversial for religious reasons, and was removed. Stills of the original ending still exist.
Sharp says the final fight scene between Francis Matthews and Christopher Lee was greatly cut by Tony Keys when Sharp had to leave the film during editing. Sharp had greatly enjoyed the experience of making his first two Hammer films - Kiss of the Vampire and Devil Ship Pirates - but not Rasputin.
As a child in the 1920s, Lee had actually met Rasputin's killer, Felix Yusupov. In later life Lee met Rasputin's daughter Maria.
Its a good horror film.
The story is largely fictionalized, although some of the events leading up to Rasputin's assassination are very loosely based on Prince Yusupov's account of the story. For legal reasons (Yusupov was still alive when the film was released), the character of Yusupov was replaced by Ivan (Matthews).
Christopher Lee play as Grigori Rasputin, the Russian peasant-mystic who gained great influence with the Tsars prior to the Russian Revolution.
The emphasis is on Rasputin's terrifying powers both to work magic and to seduce women.
Rasputin the Mad Monk was filmed back-to-back in 1965 with Dracula: Prince of Darkness, using the same sets at Hammer's Bray Studios. Lee, Matthews, Shelley and Farmer appeared in both films. In some markets, it was released on a double feature with The Reptile.
It was the third collaboration between Christopher Lee and Don Sharp, following The Devil Ship Pirates and The Face of Fu Manchu.
Lee later said, "The only way you can present him is the way he was historically described. He was a lecher and a drunk, and definitely had healing powers. So he was a saint and a sinner... There were very few good sides to him. Rasputin is one of the best things I’ve done. "
"I think it's the best thing Chris Lee's ever done," said Sharp in 1992. "Rasputin was supposed to have had this ability to hypnotise people.
The original ending had the lifeless Rasputin lying on the ice with his hands held up to his forehead in benediction. However, it was considered controversial for religious reasons, and was removed. Stills of the original ending still exist.
Sharp says the final fight scene between Francis Matthews and Christopher Lee was greatly cut by Tony Keys when Sharp had to leave the film during editing. Sharp had greatly enjoyed the experience of making his first two Hammer films - Kiss of the Vampire and Devil Ship Pirates - but not Rasputin.
As a child in the 1920s, Lee had actually met Rasputin's killer, Felix Yusupov. In later life Lee met Rasputin's daughter Maria.
Its a good horror film.