Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Star Trek: First Contact (1996) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
It’s a close run thing with “Wrath of Khan”, but this tops it as my favourite Trek film. There are so many memorable scenes:
The dramatic opening shots of Picard strapped into the Borg ship (and the subsequent jolts x 2!);
The comical drinking scene between Troi (Marina Sirtis) and Cochrane (James Cromwell);
The “Big Sleep” style holodeck sequence;
The spectacular entrance of the Borg Queen (Alice Krige);
The first warp flight;
The first contact scene, framed by Jerry Goldsmith‘s spectacular theme.
We’re up to the Enterprise-E in this one, and even that gets a self-destruct sequence! These movies must be playing havoc with their insurance premiums!
There are some nice touches for Trek fans in here: the first appearance of Robert Picardo‘s holographic doctor (before he became a regular on Star Trek: Voyager); and Dwight Schultz reprising his role from the TNG series as the nerdy fan-boy Lieutenant Barclay. In addition, the whole cast (including Gates McFadden’s Crusher) get a fairer share of the air time under Jonathan Frake’s direction.
Once again, the time travel (particularly the return journey!) is just a bit too trite and convenient. But other than that, this is a top-notch Trek movie. It features (in Alfre Woodard, just BAFTA nominated) a strong role for a female of colour. And it provides a great chance to showcase Stewart’s acting talents, as he wrestles with his own ‘great white whale’.
Given my love for the movie, I was tempted to give this one 5*s. The one thing holding me back is just a single line of dialogue. Do you know the one? Zephram Cochrane’s line…
“So, you’re astronauts? On some kind of a star trek?”.
It is just SO UTTERLY CRASS that I manage to throw up a little in my mouth as that scene happens. WHY WRITERS, WHY???
The dramatic opening shots of Picard strapped into the Borg ship (and the subsequent jolts x 2!);
The comical drinking scene between Troi (Marina Sirtis) and Cochrane (James Cromwell);
The “Big Sleep” style holodeck sequence;
The spectacular entrance of the Borg Queen (Alice Krige);
The first warp flight;
The first contact scene, framed by Jerry Goldsmith‘s spectacular theme.
We’re up to the Enterprise-E in this one, and even that gets a self-destruct sequence! These movies must be playing havoc with their insurance premiums!
There are some nice touches for Trek fans in here: the first appearance of Robert Picardo‘s holographic doctor (before he became a regular on Star Trek: Voyager); and Dwight Schultz reprising his role from the TNG series as the nerdy fan-boy Lieutenant Barclay. In addition, the whole cast (including Gates McFadden’s Crusher) get a fairer share of the air time under Jonathan Frake’s direction.
Once again, the time travel (particularly the return journey!) is just a bit too trite and convenient. But other than that, this is a top-notch Trek movie. It features (in Alfre Woodard, just BAFTA nominated) a strong role for a female of colour. And it provides a great chance to showcase Stewart’s acting talents, as he wrestles with his own ‘great white whale’.
Given my love for the movie, I was tempted to give this one 5*s. The one thing holding me back is just a single line of dialogue. Do you know the one? Zephram Cochrane’s line…
“So, you’re astronauts? On some kind of a star trek?”.
It is just SO UTTERLY CRASS that I manage to throw up a little in my mouth as that scene happens. WHY WRITERS, WHY???
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Saboteur in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
Okay, so Saboteur isn’t one of the newest or shiniest board games on the market at the moment. Here’s the thing, it doesn’t need to be. It is profoundly unique, and well, scratched a BIG itch at its debut. I cannot think, off the top of my head, of a board game that is so immensely strategic, yet quick, super thrilling, and engaging for all ages.
As I said, this game may be small, it may be older, but it is mighty. If you like that element of a “sabotage character” in board games, then you will love Saboteur. The best part of this game is that being the “sabotage character” isn’t difficult to learn or teach. I remember playing rounds of “The Resistance: Avalon” or “The Resistance” thinking “what the heck am I really supposed to do?” before really understanding the sabotagey (I am making a new word here) role. At times I felt even a little incompetent because I was stuck in this role all by myself. This is where Saboteur REALLY shines! Not only is the sabotage role easy to learn, you get sabotagey FRIENDS to help you out. It only gets better with more and more players too!
So, what is this great little game all about? Well, each player is dealt a role card which is either a regular old (yes, they all have long white beards) dwarf, or a saboteur dwarf (they look slightly more sinister than the rest). Of course, our good dwarfs are on an honest quest to find some gold. (Nothing could go wrong right!?) As our dwarf friends begin to dig further into the cave of golden wonders (in the form of cards seen in the illustration below), they have to navigate to one of 3 specified cards with only 1 truly holding their golden prize. All the while our Saboteur friends, which are not revealed until the end of the game, are making attempts to play pathways and tricks to divert the good dwarves away from the treasure. The winning conditions are simple. If the good dwarves find the gold, they win. If the Saboteurs prevent the good dwarves from finding the gold, they win. Each role is then awarded with gold chunks, which they will keep for a cumulative score after 3 rounds of play. As I said, simple, but SOOOO much fun! I think the most exciting part for our game group has always been turning over the cards at the end of each round to see who the Saboteurs really were.
I think I speak for us all when I say that the excitement level and ease of teaching for this one are through the roof. If there are any drawbacks, it is the quality of the cards themselves. You will want to sleeve them…..trust us. Your game group will be begging to play multiple games in a row, lending to not so sterling looking cards. They get scratched after only a few plays. So, with the money you will save on this cheap little gem, do yourself a favor and splurge the extra $5 and get a nice stack of sleeves! The other drawback you may find frustrating is at the end when you are revealing roles to find out that someone who you thought was a Saboteur was actually a regular dwarf all along with really unfortunate card draws! Such is life, right!? Anyway, until next time, happy gaming everyone!
Purple Phoenix Games gives this a 20 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2018/12/24/saboteur-review/
As I said, this game may be small, it may be older, but it is mighty. If you like that element of a “sabotage character” in board games, then you will love Saboteur. The best part of this game is that being the “sabotage character” isn’t difficult to learn or teach. I remember playing rounds of “The Resistance: Avalon” or “The Resistance” thinking “what the heck am I really supposed to do?” before really understanding the sabotagey (I am making a new word here) role. At times I felt even a little incompetent because I was stuck in this role all by myself. This is where Saboteur REALLY shines! Not only is the sabotage role easy to learn, you get sabotagey FRIENDS to help you out. It only gets better with more and more players too!
So, what is this great little game all about? Well, each player is dealt a role card which is either a regular old (yes, they all have long white beards) dwarf, or a saboteur dwarf (they look slightly more sinister than the rest). Of course, our good dwarfs are on an honest quest to find some gold. (Nothing could go wrong right!?) As our dwarf friends begin to dig further into the cave of golden wonders (in the form of cards seen in the illustration below), they have to navigate to one of 3 specified cards with only 1 truly holding their golden prize. All the while our Saboteur friends, which are not revealed until the end of the game, are making attempts to play pathways and tricks to divert the good dwarves away from the treasure. The winning conditions are simple. If the good dwarves find the gold, they win. If the Saboteurs prevent the good dwarves from finding the gold, they win. Each role is then awarded with gold chunks, which they will keep for a cumulative score after 3 rounds of play. As I said, simple, but SOOOO much fun! I think the most exciting part for our game group has always been turning over the cards at the end of each round to see who the Saboteurs really were.
I think I speak for us all when I say that the excitement level and ease of teaching for this one are through the roof. If there are any drawbacks, it is the quality of the cards themselves. You will want to sleeve them…..trust us. Your game group will be begging to play multiple games in a row, lending to not so sterling looking cards. They get scratched after only a few plays. So, with the money you will save on this cheap little gem, do yourself a favor and splurge the extra $5 and get a nice stack of sleeves! The other drawback you may find frustrating is at the end when you are revealing roles to find out that someone who you thought was a Saboteur was actually a regular dwarf all along with really unfortunate card draws! Such is life, right!? Anyway, until next time, happy gaming everyone!
Purple Phoenix Games gives this a 20 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2018/12/24/saboteur-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Playing for Keeps (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Gerard Butler has stepped out of his 300 uniform and into some soccer
cleats. As a former international soccer star, George (Butler) is down on
his luck. He has no job, and he’s living in Virginia, attempting to
reconnect with his estranged son.
The story opens with some backstory about George’s past before quickly
tumbling into his present situation. George’s ex-wife (Jessica Biel) is
getting remarried, and his son Lewis (Noah Lomax) is having a hard time
learning to trust his real father after being separated for so long.
The plot quickly unfolds into a predictable “chick-flick” scenario, where
the main character is floundering and wants to get back what he once had.
His path to redemption comes in the form of coaching his son’s youth
soccer team, while fending off hordes of attractive soccer *moms* who want
to place hands on the well-sculpted Coach Dryer!
This film is incredibly formulaic, and it’s predictable every step of the
way. That said, Butler, Biel, and the rest of t*he cast* do an exceptional
job given what they had to work with. I even have to give some props to
the young actor, Noah Lomax, for giving a noteworthy performance as the
son.
While there were some great chuckles and all-out laughs mixed with a few
touching moments, it’s hard to look past the poor production values of this
film. Many of the scenes were filmed in a free-hand format. The shaking is
not just noticeable, but rampant throughout the film. It’s very
distracting, and downright shoddy film-making.
The directing wasn’t bad, in general, but I think a more seasoned director
would have at least chosen better angles. Case-in-point: many of the
scenes involving the red Ferrari were obviously lit with bright, white
lights reflecting off the surface of the car, giving us a view of grips and
other personnel behind the camera.
Dennis Quaid starts the film with a great role, and delivers a fantastic
performance. Unfortunately, after the jail scene, he’s oddly absent until
the end of the film. His absence was so awkward that it distracted me from
the people who were on the screen. I even asked myself: where did Dennis
Quaid’s character go?
Uma Thurman, playing Quaid’s character’s wife, and Catherine-Zeta Jones,
playing a soccer mom, did a marvelous job (again, despite not having much
to work with).
The Hollywood stars saved this film from rating lower, due to their vast
acting experience and talent, but I can’t recommend the movie as a whole.
Even their performances weren’t enough to keep Playing For Keeps in the
same ballpark as a well-produced film. It’s shoddy movie-making at best.
I recommend you wait to watch this one at home and save your movie theater
budget for another flick, *but if you are into chick-flicks, Playing for
Keeps will not disappoint.*
cleats. As a former international soccer star, George (Butler) is down on
his luck. He has no job, and he’s living in Virginia, attempting to
reconnect with his estranged son.
The story opens with some backstory about George’s past before quickly
tumbling into his present situation. George’s ex-wife (Jessica Biel) is
getting remarried, and his son Lewis (Noah Lomax) is having a hard time
learning to trust his real father after being separated for so long.
The plot quickly unfolds into a predictable “chick-flick” scenario, where
the main character is floundering and wants to get back what he once had.
His path to redemption comes in the form of coaching his son’s youth
soccer team, while fending off hordes of attractive soccer *moms* who want
to place hands on the well-sculpted Coach Dryer!
This film is incredibly formulaic, and it’s predictable every step of the
way. That said, Butler, Biel, and the rest of t*he cast* do an exceptional
job given what they had to work with. I even have to give some props to
the young actor, Noah Lomax, for giving a noteworthy performance as the
son.
While there were some great chuckles and all-out laughs mixed with a few
touching moments, it’s hard to look past the poor production values of this
film. Many of the scenes were filmed in a free-hand format. The shaking is
not just noticeable, but rampant throughout the film. It’s very
distracting, and downright shoddy film-making.
The directing wasn’t bad, in general, but I think a more seasoned director
would have at least chosen better angles. Case-in-point: many of the
scenes involving the red Ferrari were obviously lit with bright, white
lights reflecting off the surface of the car, giving us a view of grips and
other personnel behind the camera.
Dennis Quaid starts the film with a great role, and delivers a fantastic
performance. Unfortunately, after the jail scene, he’s oddly absent until
the end of the film. His absence was so awkward that it distracted me from
the people who were on the screen. I even asked myself: where did Dennis
Quaid’s character go?
Uma Thurman, playing Quaid’s character’s wife, and Catherine-Zeta Jones,
playing a soccer mom, did a marvelous job (again, despite not having much
to work with).
The Hollywood stars saved this film from rating lower, due to their vast
acting experience and talent, but I can’t recommend the movie as a whole.
Even their performances weren’t enough to keep Playing For Keeps in the
same ballpark as a well-produced film. It’s shoddy movie-making at best.
I recommend you wait to watch this one at home and save your movie theater
budget for another flick, *but if you are into chick-flicks, Playing for
Keeps will not disappoint.*
Playing to the Edge: American Intelligence in the Age of Terror
Book
An unprecedented high-level master narrative of America's intelligence wars, demonstrating in a time...
Politics security conflict
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) in Movies
Sep 10, 2020
Beautiful Visuals
A part of being a critic means being able to separate the art from the creator. In my recent review of Swing Time, I came to the conclusion that the movie as a whole was still enjoyable despite their use of blackface in one scene. While I don’t agree with everything JK Rowling is saying at this point in time, I can’t deny the magical world that she has created and the stories that lie within. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the sixth installment in the franchise, is no exception. In this darker film, Harry is finding himself in preparation of facing off against the evil Lord Voldemort.
Acting: 10
This is my first review of a Harry Potter film. I must say, it has been a pleasure to watch these young actors grow into stars. Daniel Radcliffe was made for the role of Harry Potter and it appears he has matured at the same time his character has. Gone is the young innocence of the first film, replaced by teenage angst and anger. It is hard to imagine anyone else playing the role just as it is hard to imagine anyone but Alan Rickman playing the role of the hard-faced, dark Professor Snape.
Beginning: 10
The mayhem starts almost instantly and wastes no time in getting you sucked into the movie. You know right away what the heroes are up against and it ain’t looking good for the heroes. I appreciated that immediate intensity.
Characters: 10
The gang is all here from the previous five films, the characters we have grown to know and love. I respect the fact that every character continues to grow and mature in their own way, particularly Harry. Thrust into this world of magic and wizardry, becoming an adult becomes ten times more challenging with all the Hogwarts-related biz thrown into the mix.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
At some point in the movie, there is a scene shot in black and white involving Albus Dumbledore that’s super cool to watch unfold. Visually this film is just as strong as the previous ones, if not stronger as it is working with darker tones throughout. With beautiful camerawork, director David Yates makes you feel the tension of each scene as you are taken on this journey.
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 9
Even if you aren’t a die-hard Harry Potter fan, the film takes you on an extremely intense journey. You experience a rollercoaster of emotions, many unexpected if you haven’t read the books. It is a wonderful setup for the film’s final act.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
While the ending was necessary, it definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. it also didn’t quite feel complete as it was an obvious setup for things to come. The last ten minutes were mediocre at best for me.
Overall: 87
I could think of worse ways to spend your time than watching Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The series continues to improve upon itself and this was a worthy installment. It has just the right level of creepiness factor to pique one’s interest.
Acting: 10
This is my first review of a Harry Potter film. I must say, it has been a pleasure to watch these young actors grow into stars. Daniel Radcliffe was made for the role of Harry Potter and it appears he has matured at the same time his character has. Gone is the young innocence of the first film, replaced by teenage angst and anger. It is hard to imagine anyone else playing the role just as it is hard to imagine anyone but Alan Rickman playing the role of the hard-faced, dark Professor Snape.
Beginning: 10
The mayhem starts almost instantly and wastes no time in getting you sucked into the movie. You know right away what the heroes are up against and it ain’t looking good for the heroes. I appreciated that immediate intensity.
Characters: 10
The gang is all here from the previous five films, the characters we have grown to know and love. I respect the fact that every character continues to grow and mature in their own way, particularly Harry. Thrust into this world of magic and wizardry, becoming an adult becomes ten times more challenging with all the Hogwarts-related biz thrown into the mix.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
At some point in the movie, there is a scene shot in black and white involving Albus Dumbledore that’s super cool to watch unfold. Visually this film is just as strong as the previous ones, if not stronger as it is working with darker tones throughout. With beautiful camerawork, director David Yates makes you feel the tension of each scene as you are taken on this journey.
Conflict: 8
Entertainment Value: 9
Even if you aren’t a die-hard Harry Potter fan, the film takes you on an extremely intense journey. You experience a rollercoaster of emotions, many unexpected if you haven’t read the books. It is a wonderful setup for the film’s final act.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
While the ending was necessary, it definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. it also didn’t quite feel complete as it was an obvious setup for things to come. The last ten minutes were mediocre at best for me.
Overall: 87
I could think of worse ways to spend your time than watching Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The series continues to improve upon itself and this was a worthy installment. It has just the right level of creepiness factor to pique one’s interest.
Let's do pretend!! Hamburger shop! - Work Experience-Based Brain Training App
Education and Games
App
◆◇◆ Learn! Play! An Experience! ◆◇◆ ◇◆Let's do pretend!! Hamburger shop!◇◆ ...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated House of Frankenstein (1944) in Movies
Jun 18, 2020 (Updated Jun 18, 2020)
Get The Gang All Together: The Crossover
House of Frankenstein- is the ultimate monster crossover. It has Frankenstein, Dracula played by John Carradine, the Hunchback and the Wolf-Man played by Lon Chaney Jr. and a mad scientist played by Boris Karloff.
This "monster rally" approach would continue in the following film, House of Dracula, as well as the 1948 comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.
The plot: After escaping from prison, the evil Dr. Niemann (Boris Karloff) and his hunchbacked assistant, Daniel (J. Carrol Naish), plot their revenge against those who imprisoned them. For this, they recruit the powerful Wolf Man (Lon Chaney), Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange) and even Dracula himself (John Carradine). Niemann pursues those who wrong him, sending each monster out to do his dirty work. But his control on the monsters is weak at best and may prove to be his downfall.
Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943) had been the first on-screen pairing of two Universal Studios monsters, but The House of Frankenstein was the first multi-monster movie. Early drafts of the story reportedly involved more characters from the Universal stable, including the Mummy, the Ape Woman, the Mad Ghoul, and possibly the Invisible Man. Working titles—which included Chamber of Horrors (a reference to Lampini's travelling horror show) and The Devil's Brood—emphasized the multi-monster nature of the story.
The multi-monster approach, which emphasized box office appeal over continuity, was used in House of Dracula the following year and later in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. The House of Frankenstein marked Glenn Strange's debut as the monster. Strange, a former cowboy, had been a minor supporting player in dozens of low-budget Westerns over the preceding 15 years. He reprised the role in House of Dracula and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, and cemented the popular image of the monster as shambling, clumsy, and inarticulate. Boris Karloff, who had moved on from playing the monster to playing the mad scientist, reportedly coached Strange on how to play the role.
Some continuity errors are evident in the finished film. After Dracula is thrown from the carriage, he looks over to where his coffin has landed; in a close-up, part of his mustache is gone. Also, when Talbot transforms into the Wolf Man for the final time, his hands lack fur.
Karloff's performance in this film is his last in Universal's classic horror cycle.
Its a fun entertaining movie starring the uninversal monsters.
This "monster rally" approach would continue in the following film, House of Dracula, as well as the 1948 comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.
The plot: After escaping from prison, the evil Dr. Niemann (Boris Karloff) and his hunchbacked assistant, Daniel (J. Carrol Naish), plot their revenge against those who imprisoned them. For this, they recruit the powerful Wolf Man (Lon Chaney), Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange) and even Dracula himself (John Carradine). Niemann pursues those who wrong him, sending each monster out to do his dirty work. But his control on the monsters is weak at best and may prove to be his downfall.
Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943) had been the first on-screen pairing of two Universal Studios monsters, but The House of Frankenstein was the first multi-monster movie. Early drafts of the story reportedly involved more characters from the Universal stable, including the Mummy, the Ape Woman, the Mad Ghoul, and possibly the Invisible Man. Working titles—which included Chamber of Horrors (a reference to Lampini's travelling horror show) and The Devil's Brood—emphasized the multi-monster nature of the story.
The multi-monster approach, which emphasized box office appeal over continuity, was used in House of Dracula the following year and later in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. The House of Frankenstein marked Glenn Strange's debut as the monster. Strange, a former cowboy, had been a minor supporting player in dozens of low-budget Westerns over the preceding 15 years. He reprised the role in House of Dracula and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, and cemented the popular image of the monster as shambling, clumsy, and inarticulate. Boris Karloff, who had moved on from playing the monster to playing the mad scientist, reportedly coached Strange on how to play the role.
Some continuity errors are evident in the finished film. After Dracula is thrown from the carriage, he looks over to where his coffin has landed; in a close-up, part of his mustache is gone. Also, when Talbot transforms into the Wolf Man for the final time, his hands lack fur.
Karloff's performance in this film is his last in Universal's classic horror cycle.
Its a fun entertaining movie starring the uninversal monsters.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated A Star Is Born (1954) in Movies
Jun 29, 2020
A Long Winding Road In Need of a Detour
An aspiring actress gets a her big break when discovered by an alcoholic film star.
Acting: 10
Apparently her first film since four years prior, Judy Garland makes the stage sizzle playing the main role of Vicki Lester. I loved her passion and charisma and the way she delivers her lines with a charm that just lights up the screen. There are a number of other shining roles as well, including a fun performance from James Brown playing the role of Glenn Wiliams.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
Although you don’t really get to fully see her development until two thirds of the way into the movie, Vicki Lester is definitely a character an audience can get behind. I rooted for her success in hopes that she would steer clear of the trap the movie was clearly setting for her. That’s the thing about movies, sometimes the audience can see from a mile away something it takes ages for the characters themselves to see. The movie would have been unbearable without solid characters to carry it through.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 8
There were a lot of pitfalls Vicki had to deal with along the way, namely her alcoholic husband who continues to bring her down. Had they delved into her backstory a lot quicker, I would’ve given this category a perfect score as her upbringing provided another potential pitfall for her future. Overall, with everything going on in the film, it’s clear the winding road is only leading to one place.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 7
Pace: 4
This version is the longest of the four coming in at almost three hours. Seeing how the other three were able to tell the same story with considerably less time, there is no reason for this version to be so long. It gets boring in a few spots and had me longing for the conclusion. While there are a number of shining moments, a slow pace kept this to a one-watch movie for me.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 78
A Star is Born is just unnecessarily long. I was expecting a legit reason for the length but, after watching the other three movies, I was at a loss. To hold an audience’s attention for almost three hours means you need plenty of meat for your story. The movie is good, but merely one-watch good. Unfortunately that’s not quite good enough.
Acting: 10
Apparently her first film since four years prior, Judy Garland makes the stage sizzle playing the main role of Vicki Lester. I loved her passion and charisma and the way she delivers her lines with a charm that just lights up the screen. There are a number of other shining roles as well, including a fun performance from James Brown playing the role of Glenn Wiliams.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
Although you don’t really get to fully see her development until two thirds of the way into the movie, Vicki Lester is definitely a character an audience can get behind. I rooted for her success in hopes that she would steer clear of the trap the movie was clearly setting for her. That’s the thing about movies, sometimes the audience can see from a mile away something it takes ages for the characters themselves to see. The movie would have been unbearable without solid characters to carry it through.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 8
There were a lot of pitfalls Vicki had to deal with along the way, namely her alcoholic husband who continues to bring her down. Had they delved into her backstory a lot quicker, I would’ve given this category a perfect score as her upbringing provided another potential pitfall for her future. Overall, with everything going on in the film, it’s clear the winding road is only leading to one place.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 7
Pace: 4
This version is the longest of the four coming in at almost three hours. Seeing how the other three were able to tell the same story with considerably less time, there is no reason for this version to be so long. It gets boring in a few spots and had me longing for the conclusion. While there are a number of shining moments, a slow pace kept this to a one-watch movie for me.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 78
A Star is Born is just unnecessarily long. I was expecting a legit reason for the length but, after watching the other three movies, I was at a loss. To hold an audience’s attention for almost three hours means you need plenty of meat for your story. The movie is good, but merely one-watch good. Unfortunately that’s not quite good enough.
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated Charlie's Farm (2014) in Movies
Jun 18, 2017
Imaginative kills (2 more)
Great special effects
Another cool slasher icob
A head smashing fun romp
Poor Charlie, orpaned at age 9 when his cannibalizing parents were lynched by the locals for murdering and eating the transient workers they hired on their desolate pig farm.
Fast forward 25 years and Tara Reid and her friends are roaming the Australian land in search of urban legend Charlie and his farm. What they find will definitely satisfy the veiwer once they locate the farm and all hell breaks loose.
A good script, excellent effects, and a beast of a killer played with absolute disdain for the trespassing adults by a mountain of a man named Nathan Jones who portrays Charlie with an almost childlike innocence even though he's slaughters his victims he seems to be playing with them, like a kid with a magnifying glass who enjoys burning ants. Jones has played beasts before in films like Troy. And a few years after the release of this he was the monster of a man in Mad Max:Fury Road.
Jones kills(pardon the pun) this role.
I recommend this film for people who enjoy a good slasher flick. Charlie's Farm gives the watcher what they're looking for, and leaves you yearning for one more kill.
Fast forward 25 years and Tara Reid and her friends are roaming the Australian land in search of urban legend Charlie and his farm. What they find will definitely satisfy the veiwer once they locate the farm and all hell breaks loose.
A good script, excellent effects, and a beast of a killer played with absolute disdain for the trespassing adults by a mountain of a man named Nathan Jones who portrays Charlie with an almost childlike innocence even though he's slaughters his victims he seems to be playing with them, like a kid with a magnifying glass who enjoys burning ants. Jones has played beasts before in films like Troy. And a few years after the release of this he was the monster of a man in Mad Max:Fury Road.
Jones kills(pardon the pun) this role.
I recommend this film for people who enjoy a good slasher flick. Charlie's Farm gives the watcher what they're looking for, and leaves you yearning for one more kill.
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated 12 Years a Slave (2013) in Movies
Sep 6, 2017
Cast and acting is spectacular (1 more)
Fantastic direction by Steve McQueen
Harrowing, disturbing beyond belief
It's taken me four years to watch this film out of fear I'd be seriously disturbed by the end of it. And no doubt it is disturbing.
The story of Solomon Northrup entails a free black man in America being kidnapped and then sold into slavery. He is gifted and educated, on top of having led a free life with his wife and children, hence in many ways it can be seen as even more traumatic knowing what is already out there.
What's interesting is the complicity of others involved, including other African Americans who have had to turn the other cheek in order to survive. The white men are despicable in this film, the brutality is truly horrifying.
It goes without saying Chiwetel Ejiofor is fantastic as Solomon, he's understated which makes his acting all the more moving. Michael Fassbender is particularly gratuitous in his role as a slave owner. Lupita Nyong'o is absolutely outstanding, playing a woman brutalized by the master for his own disgusting needs. The women go through a particular hell in this horrid period of history. You'll need a strong countenance to watch this.
The story of Solomon Northrup entails a free black man in America being kidnapped and then sold into slavery. He is gifted and educated, on top of having led a free life with his wife and children, hence in many ways it can be seen as even more traumatic knowing what is already out there.
What's interesting is the complicity of others involved, including other African Americans who have had to turn the other cheek in order to survive. The white men are despicable in this film, the brutality is truly horrifying.
It goes without saying Chiwetel Ejiofor is fantastic as Solomon, he's understated which makes his acting all the more moving. Michael Fassbender is particularly gratuitous in his role as a slave owner. Lupita Nyong'o is absolutely outstanding, playing a woman brutalized by the master for his own disgusting needs. The women go through a particular hell in this horrid period of history. You'll need a strong countenance to watch this.
