Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Divergent: Allegiant starts with Evelyn (Watts) closing the walls, has something to do with the last one. Tris (Woodley) and Four (James) are on the outskirts and Four is going to try and change the mind of Evelyn. When Evelyn starts acting the same as the former leader Tris and Four along with the other friends Caleb (Elgort), Christina (Kravitz) and Peter (Teller) plan their escape.
Over the wall they only find destruction before being rescued by David’s (Daniels) people the Bureau of Genetic Welfare who created the world they started in. This time Tris gets the chance to save the world not just a city, but can she trust everyone around her this time?
Divergent: Allegiant is the third instalment of the franchise with at least one more to go, great. This time we meet yet another group of people who want control of the city that Tris ends up having stop. The plan seems very familiar oh yeah it is the basic plot of Batman Begins, wanting to spread gas in a city to kill/infect everyone. I am getting tired of these because what happens is they hire a well-respected actor only to make them the BAD GUY yet again. Simply put this is nothing new.
Actor Review
Shailene Woodley: Tris having opened the box to the outside world last time escapes the city only to learn that the city is part of an experiment to find genetic perfection which is why they search for the Divergent in the first place. Tris is the most powerful Divergent, purest if you like that must represent the success of the experiment. Shailene is working her way through the contract where we know she can do better.tris
Theo James: Four for is the boyfriend, fellow Divergent and son of the new dictator of Chicago. When he escapes he finds himself being separated from Tris for not being pure finding it hard to adjust to the change. Theo improves from last time out but let’s face it his body got him this role.
Naomi Watts: Evelyn is the new dictator in Chicago that has continued in the ways the ruler before had, she is ready to fight anyone who goes against her. Naomi is wasted in this role where you would expect to see a lot more from her.
Jeff Daniels: David the running the Bureau of Genetic Welfare who have been watching Chicago for years, he sees Tris as the first case of purification to come out of the city proving their experiment has been working at last. Jeff is the star of the show without being too impressive.david
Support Cast: Divergent: Allegiant has a big supporting cast with some returning and a few more added but it is hard to keep up with who is work with who.
Director Review: Robert Schwentke – Robert gives us some very good shots but the story is very bland.
Action: Divergent: Allegiant has very basic action sequence you would expect to see now in the young adult genre.
Adventure: Divergent: Allegiant continues an adventure I guess.
Mystery: Divergent: Allegiant add mystery to where everything is going but really is milking it now.
Sci-Fi: Divergent: Allegiant brings us into a sci-fi of the future but too bright for the bleakness.
Thriller: Divergent: Allegiant doesn’t really keep us on the edge like it should have done.
Settings: Divergent: Allegiant continues to expand the world in this universe without really giving us enough.
Special Effects: Divergent: Allegiant has some good effects without being anything breath taking.
Suggestion: Divergent: Allegiant does improve on Insurgent but still going the wrong way, skip. (Skip)
Best Part: Peter is so funny.
Worst Part: More of the same.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Hunger Games Mockingjays.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 2 Hours 1 Minute
Tagline: Break the boundaries of your world
Overall: Yet another bland sequel to a franchise which has gone on too long.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/03/28/divergent-allegiant-2016/
Over the wall they only find destruction before being rescued by David’s (Daniels) people the Bureau of Genetic Welfare who created the world they started in. This time Tris gets the chance to save the world not just a city, but can she trust everyone around her this time?
Divergent: Allegiant is the third instalment of the franchise with at least one more to go, great. This time we meet yet another group of people who want control of the city that Tris ends up having stop. The plan seems very familiar oh yeah it is the basic plot of Batman Begins, wanting to spread gas in a city to kill/infect everyone. I am getting tired of these because what happens is they hire a well-respected actor only to make them the BAD GUY yet again. Simply put this is nothing new.
Actor Review
Shailene Woodley: Tris having opened the box to the outside world last time escapes the city only to learn that the city is part of an experiment to find genetic perfection which is why they search for the Divergent in the first place. Tris is the most powerful Divergent, purest if you like that must represent the success of the experiment. Shailene is working her way through the contract where we know she can do better.tris
Theo James: Four for is the boyfriend, fellow Divergent and son of the new dictator of Chicago. When he escapes he finds himself being separated from Tris for not being pure finding it hard to adjust to the change. Theo improves from last time out but let’s face it his body got him this role.
Naomi Watts: Evelyn is the new dictator in Chicago that has continued in the ways the ruler before had, she is ready to fight anyone who goes against her. Naomi is wasted in this role where you would expect to see a lot more from her.
Jeff Daniels: David the running the Bureau of Genetic Welfare who have been watching Chicago for years, he sees Tris as the first case of purification to come out of the city proving their experiment has been working at last. Jeff is the star of the show without being too impressive.david
Support Cast: Divergent: Allegiant has a big supporting cast with some returning and a few more added but it is hard to keep up with who is work with who.
Director Review: Robert Schwentke – Robert gives us some very good shots but the story is very bland.
Action: Divergent: Allegiant has very basic action sequence you would expect to see now in the young adult genre.
Adventure: Divergent: Allegiant continues an adventure I guess.
Mystery: Divergent: Allegiant add mystery to where everything is going but really is milking it now.
Sci-Fi: Divergent: Allegiant brings us into a sci-fi of the future but too bright for the bleakness.
Thriller: Divergent: Allegiant doesn’t really keep us on the edge like it should have done.
Settings: Divergent: Allegiant continues to expand the world in this universe without really giving us enough.
Special Effects: Divergent: Allegiant has some good effects without being anything breath taking.
Suggestion: Divergent: Allegiant does improve on Insurgent but still going the wrong way, skip. (Skip)
Best Part: Peter is so funny.
Worst Part: More of the same.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Yes
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Hunger Games Mockingjays.
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 2 Hours 1 Minute
Tagline: Break the boundaries of your world
Overall: Yet another bland sequel to a franchise which has gone on too long.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/03/28/divergent-allegiant-2016/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 20, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 10 Cloverfield Lane starts as we see Michelle (Winstead) walking away from her married life with Ben only to find herself in a car accident. Upon waking up she finds her chained up in a bed as she desperately looks for a way out. Michelle’s capturer is Howard (Goodman) who claims to have saved her from an attack on America. Michelle isn’t the only other person in the bunker with Emmett (Gallagher Jr) also there.
Howard has been preparing this bunker for years and has everything needed to survive in luxury with electricity and plumbing. The three have to learn to live with each other as the paranoia about what has really happened keeps rising.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a very clever thriller that creates the paranoia of what could be going happening through nearly the whole film. We are sat wondering what is happening outside the bunker and what will happen inside the bunker. The downside from where I am sat was knowing it was a sequel, if this was just about the bunker and the final twist was that it was in the Cloverfield universe we would have found ourselves fully on Michelle’s side but as we know it is all real we kind of side with the paranoia filled Howard. This is good and tense throughout but the title alone takes away something truly special about the film.
Actor Review
John Goodman: Howard is the man who has built the bunker, he has let both Michelle and Emmett stay in his bunker as he believes America would come under attack from something. He is ex-navy and very paranoid, we are left wondering whether h is crazy or not though. John is great in this role where we see him using the talent he has.howard
Mary Elizabeth Winstead: Michelle is a young woman who is wondering about her life before finding herself being in a car crash. She wakes up in the bunker where she has to learn to live with Howard and Emmett. She is never comfortable there always trying to find a way out. Mary is great in this strong female role.michelle
John Gallagher Jr: Emmett was hired to help build the bunker and found himself inside when the attacks happened. He tries to be nice to Michele which only pushes Howard into his paranoia. John is good in this role if only the supporting of the three.
Support Cast: 10 Cloverfield Lane doesn’t have many other characters with most just being in one scene.
Director Review: Dan Trachtenberg – Dan gives us a thriller that really does keep up guessing what is real.
Horror: 10 Cloverfield Lane gives us the idea where we just don’t know what is going on showing the paranoia driving the horror.
Mystery: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us guessing from start to finish.
Sci-Fi: 10 Cloverfield Lane enters into a world which could have a post-apocalyptic world but never really understand.
Thriller: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us on edge for the whole film where we are left to wonder where the film will go.
Settings: 10 Cloverfield Lane has nearly the whole film inside the bunker where we see the tension rise.
Special Effects: 10 Cloverfield Lane has good effects when needed without being in the film being all about special effects.
Suggestion: 10 Cloverfield Lane is one for fans of the original to enjoy but just remember this is only in the same universe rather than a sequel. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances.
Worst Part: Title is misleading.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: We could have.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $15 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 43 Minutes
Tagline: Something is coming
Trivia: Howard states that he worked on satellites for the military. Michelle sees an envelope in the bunker from a company called Bold Futura. Bold Futura is the company responsible for the satellite that is seen crashing into the ocean in the ending of Cloverfield (2008) which is what is believed to be responsible for disturbing the creature.
Overall: Great concept we don’t see in sequels with this only being in the same universe only.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/03/31/10-cloverfield-lane-2016/
Howard has been preparing this bunker for years and has everything needed to survive in luxury with electricity and plumbing. The three have to learn to live with each other as the paranoia about what has really happened keeps rising.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a very clever thriller that creates the paranoia of what could be going happening through nearly the whole film. We are sat wondering what is happening outside the bunker and what will happen inside the bunker. The downside from where I am sat was knowing it was a sequel, if this was just about the bunker and the final twist was that it was in the Cloverfield universe we would have found ourselves fully on Michelle’s side but as we know it is all real we kind of side with the paranoia filled Howard. This is good and tense throughout but the title alone takes away something truly special about the film.
Actor Review
John Goodman: Howard is the man who has built the bunker, he has let both Michelle and Emmett stay in his bunker as he believes America would come under attack from something. He is ex-navy and very paranoid, we are left wondering whether h is crazy or not though. John is great in this role where we see him using the talent he has.howard
Mary Elizabeth Winstead: Michelle is a young woman who is wondering about her life before finding herself being in a car crash. She wakes up in the bunker where she has to learn to live with Howard and Emmett. She is never comfortable there always trying to find a way out. Mary is great in this strong female role.michelle
John Gallagher Jr: Emmett was hired to help build the bunker and found himself inside when the attacks happened. He tries to be nice to Michele which only pushes Howard into his paranoia. John is good in this role if only the supporting of the three.
Support Cast: 10 Cloverfield Lane doesn’t have many other characters with most just being in one scene.
Director Review: Dan Trachtenberg – Dan gives us a thriller that really does keep up guessing what is real.
Horror: 10 Cloverfield Lane gives us the idea where we just don’t know what is going on showing the paranoia driving the horror.
Mystery: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us guessing from start to finish.
Sci-Fi: 10 Cloverfield Lane enters into a world which could have a post-apocalyptic world but never really understand.
Thriller: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us on edge for the whole film where we are left to wonder where the film will go.
Settings: 10 Cloverfield Lane has nearly the whole film inside the bunker where we see the tension rise.
Special Effects: 10 Cloverfield Lane has good effects when needed without being in the film being all about special effects.
Suggestion: 10 Cloverfield Lane is one for fans of the original to enjoy but just remember this is only in the same universe rather than a sequel. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances.
Worst Part: Title is misleading.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: We could have.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $15 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 43 Minutes
Tagline: Something is coming
Trivia: Howard states that he worked on satellites for the military. Michelle sees an envelope in the bunker from a company called Bold Futura. Bold Futura is the company responsible for the satellite that is seen crashing into the ocean in the ending of Cloverfield (2008) which is what is believed to be responsible for disturbing the creature.
Overall: Great concept we don’t see in sequels with this only being in the same universe only.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/03/31/10-cloverfield-lane-2016/
Andrew Sinclair (25 KP) rated Demolition Man (1993) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019 (Updated Nov 25, 2019)
I've decided it will be fun to review this classic action-packed sci-fi thriller as I watch it. I've watched it many times before and I guess I'm feeling nostalgic.
The film opens with a violent action scene with Stallone the hero pursuing his nemesis Wesley Snipes. It's tense stuff as they come face to face and stare each other down. It's literally an explosive beginning. Snipes manic laughter in that first scene gives you an idea of the kind of psychopath he is playing. After the destruction they have both caused they are both sentenced to be cryogenicly frozen for their crimes. That's a harsh punishment for an over-zealous cop but probably a fair one for a psychotic killer.
35 years later and America is a very different place. There is barely any crime but very little freedom. It is even illegal to swear. It's this philosophical debate that the film sheds light on which makes it both intriguing and funny. When the main characters, Snipes first then Stallone, find themselves in this supposed utopia their reactions are both humorous and volatile.
However one character played by Sandra Bullock actually appreciates Stallone's hardline old-fashioned ways as she has a fascination for the 20th Century. This creates an amusing and romantic interaction between them. Her inept attempts at 20th Century phrases adds to the comedy.
The scene where the police need instructions to arrest a violent criminal from a device which is like a modern day tablet makes me smile. And the line "We're police officers. We're not trained for this kind of violence!" makes me laugh out loud.
There is also a conspiracy story line. Snipes was released on purpose in order to hunt down rebels who resent the choice limiting laws. Meanwhile others unaware of this conspiracy release Stallone in order to capture Snipes. Then things really kick off!
The list of things that have been made illegal is laughable and this is brilliantly summed up with Stallone's line "Are you shitting me?!"
The films futuristic vision is entertaining and is also a good vehicle for humour as Stallone and Snipes are constantly taken aback by the technology. They both finally cross paths again in a museum where Snipes is stealing old weapons as of course weapons are illegal now. From this point on they continue their cat and mouse pursuit until the spectacular climax.
I love this film! It's over the top full-on fun which also manages to be philosophically thought-provoking. Definitely worth watching!
The film opens with a violent action scene with Stallone the hero pursuing his nemesis Wesley Snipes. It's tense stuff as they come face to face and stare each other down. It's literally an explosive beginning. Snipes manic laughter in that first scene gives you an idea of the kind of psychopath he is playing. After the destruction they have both caused they are both sentenced to be cryogenicly frozen for their crimes. That's a harsh punishment for an over-zealous cop but probably a fair one for a psychotic killer.
35 years later and America is a very different place. There is barely any crime but very little freedom. It is even illegal to swear. It's this philosophical debate that the film sheds light on which makes it both intriguing and funny. When the main characters, Snipes first then Stallone, find themselves in this supposed utopia their reactions are both humorous and volatile.
However one character played by Sandra Bullock actually appreciates Stallone's hardline old-fashioned ways as she has a fascination for the 20th Century. This creates an amusing and romantic interaction between them. Her inept attempts at 20th Century phrases adds to the comedy.
The scene where the police need instructions to arrest a violent criminal from a device which is like a modern day tablet makes me smile. And the line "We're police officers. We're not trained for this kind of violence!" makes me laugh out loud.
There is also a conspiracy story line. Snipes was released on purpose in order to hunt down rebels who resent the choice limiting laws. Meanwhile others unaware of this conspiracy release Stallone in order to capture Snipes. Then things really kick off!
The list of things that have been made illegal is laughable and this is brilliantly summed up with Stallone's line "Are you shitting me?!"
The films futuristic vision is entertaining and is also a good vehicle for humour as Stallone and Snipes are constantly taken aback by the technology. They both finally cross paths again in a museum where Snipes is stealing old weapons as of course weapons are illegal now. From this point on they continue their cat and mouse pursuit until the spectacular climax.
I love this film! It's over the top full-on fun which also manages to be philosophically thought-provoking. Definitely worth watching!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Elizabeth Sloane (Jessica Chastain) is one of the most sought-after lobbyists in Washington, D.C. In Miss Sloane, she represents clients on both domestic and international issues ranging from environment and ecological concerns like palm oil to more volatile topics as 2nd Amendment issues.
At a point, Elizabeth sees a crossroads on the horizon and leaves her prestigious firm to take up the fight for gun control with a much smaller firm with less resources, money, and personnel. She is not necessarily “fighting the good fight,” rather, she wants to prove that she can win.
Winning, to her, is all that matters. It matters more than the issues and clients she represents. It matters more than any relationships that she could foster throughout her career. Winning, and her legacy as a winner, is what matters.
The film is a simple approach to something that is sorely needed in the film world outside of the realm of sci-fi: a strong female lead character. Elizabeth is a cut throat lobbyist who is focused on her end goal. In pursuing her outcomes, she sees people as obstacles that she must either maneuver around or go through.
She presents an image that she is a cold, calculating megalomaniacal individual. When behind closed doors, the audience is able to see who she really is: human. Elizabeth finds herself stuck in a world of deception, power, and money. She doesn’t know how to escape in one piece. In fact, she doesn’t know how to escape. Her identity is wrapped up into her profession.
Her reputation is what draws people in and keeps others at bay. When she undergoes a congressional hearing about regulations violations, she finds out how easily this empire that she built could crumble down, or, at least, that is what she lets others think.
The film is strong in its approach to a world that much of the audience is only familiar with during election years as candidates rail against lobbying or are exposed for their close connections to these organizations.
It is not overly ambitious nor does it dumb down the material and dialogue to offer a sense of “universal appeal.” The intrigue will keep audiences fully focused on speculating as to what her next move will be in trying to outmaneuver everyone who seems to be opposed to her.
Her rivals, as well as the audience, will be captivated to the end. Miss Sloane is a political thriller that rivals films like All the President’s Men and The Candidate. It doesn’t disappoint.
At a point, Elizabeth sees a crossroads on the horizon and leaves her prestigious firm to take up the fight for gun control with a much smaller firm with less resources, money, and personnel. She is not necessarily “fighting the good fight,” rather, she wants to prove that she can win.
Winning, to her, is all that matters. It matters more than the issues and clients she represents. It matters more than any relationships that she could foster throughout her career. Winning, and her legacy as a winner, is what matters.
The film is a simple approach to something that is sorely needed in the film world outside of the realm of sci-fi: a strong female lead character. Elizabeth is a cut throat lobbyist who is focused on her end goal. In pursuing her outcomes, she sees people as obstacles that she must either maneuver around or go through.
She presents an image that she is a cold, calculating megalomaniacal individual. When behind closed doors, the audience is able to see who she really is: human. Elizabeth finds herself stuck in a world of deception, power, and money. She doesn’t know how to escape in one piece. In fact, she doesn’t know how to escape. Her identity is wrapped up into her profession.
Her reputation is what draws people in and keeps others at bay. When she undergoes a congressional hearing about regulations violations, she finds out how easily this empire that she built could crumble down, or, at least, that is what she lets others think.
The film is strong in its approach to a world that much of the audience is only familiar with during election years as candidates rail against lobbying or are exposed for their close connections to these organizations.
It is not overly ambitious nor does it dumb down the material and dialogue to offer a sense of “universal appeal.” The intrigue will keep audiences fully focused on speculating as to what her next move will be in trying to outmaneuver everyone who seems to be opposed to her.
Her rivals, as well as the audience, will be captivated to the end. Miss Sloane is a political thriller that rivals films like All the President’s Men and The Candidate. It doesn’t disappoint.
Bookapotamus (289 KP) rated Providence: A Novel in Books
Jun 23, 2018
Super Fun Read!
Wow! This was my first Caroline Kepnes book and let me tell you - it will NOT be my last! I loved this book, I flew through it and did not want it to end, and what a fun and unique story! I'm a HUGE Stranger Things fan, and this reminded me a bit of that - part sci-fi/fantasy/horror, but also part mystery/detective thriller - so many things I love all mixed in to one really clever tale. In the end, it's really a fun journey across time between two star crossed lovers - desperate to be together in a masterfully crafted journey of horrible circumstances that may forever keep them apart.
You get sucked in right away... Jon and Chloe are high school teens, the best of friends, and you assume, in time, they'll be together forever as you can see how much they love one another. Then, one morning Jon gets kidnapped and everything changes. Something happened to him and we might never be able to see if him and Chloe will that next step and spend their lives together. The things that have happened to him, may keep them apart forever.
The coming-of-age part is really interesting here, because Jon misses so much he's forced to grow up when his body has already done so. And the duality of good vs. evil comes into play a lot - and what a struggle it is to keep the two separate, when their pull is almost beyond control. We also follow the story of Eggs, who is a pretty darn smart detective, obsessed with a case that haunts him. And we follow his own life, his struggle with family, and how he tries to put the pieces of his own life back together while it falls apart around him - as he tries to solve a really strange mystery.
There is a lot of HP Lovecraft reference in this book, including a yearly Lovecraft convention (he was from Providence). I've heard him referenced in several novels before but have never actually read his work. I think I just might have to check it out now. BUT it did not hinder the story at all if you aren't familiar with his work. I am not familiar, and I loved every minute of the book!
This book was so much fun - a bit peculiar in parts but seriously, a fun ride from start to finish. Thanks to NetGalley and Caroline Kepnes and Random House Publishing Group for the advanced copy to review.
You get sucked in right away... Jon and Chloe are high school teens, the best of friends, and you assume, in time, they'll be together forever as you can see how much they love one another. Then, one morning Jon gets kidnapped and everything changes. Something happened to him and we might never be able to see if him and Chloe will that next step and spend their lives together. The things that have happened to him, may keep them apart forever.
The coming-of-age part is really interesting here, because Jon misses so much he's forced to grow up when his body has already done so. And the duality of good vs. evil comes into play a lot - and what a struggle it is to keep the two separate, when their pull is almost beyond control. We also follow the story of Eggs, who is a pretty darn smart detective, obsessed with a case that haunts him. And we follow his own life, his struggle with family, and how he tries to put the pieces of his own life back together while it falls apart around him - as he tries to solve a really strange mystery.
There is a lot of HP Lovecraft reference in this book, including a yearly Lovecraft convention (he was from Providence). I've heard him referenced in several novels before but have never actually read his work. I think I just might have to check it out now. BUT it did not hinder the story at all if you aren't familiar with his work. I am not familiar, and I loved every minute of the book!
This book was so much fun - a bit peculiar in parts but seriously, a fun ride from start to finish. Thanks to NetGalley and Caroline Kepnes and Random House Publishing Group for the advanced copy to review.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Escape Room (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
TL;DR - I'm never doing an escape room ever again, and potentially never going anywhere that begins with a mysterious invitation.
The film opens, somewhat strangely, with some of the last scenes of the movie. I'm not sure whether this helped the film along or not. We already knew what to expect before going in so starting with the intrigue of the invitations probably would have worked just as well, it did at least ease you in to what you'd be getting from the rest of the film.
I was a little disappointed that we didn't get an intro to all of the characters. Admittedly six intro pieces would have made the beginning of the story drag but it felt a little odd to have the other three thrown in with no context. On the plus side you are able to infer some things about their back story as we go through the film, but I don't quite see the logic behind who they included and excluded.
Drama, mystery, sci-fi, thriller... that's how IMDb classified Escape Room, and this is why I don't know why we bother pigeon holing films. It's definitely a thriller and can loosely fit into the horror genre (I only say loosely because of it's lack of gore) but to claim any of the others is a stretch.
In what was probably a rather average film I was glad to see some pieces that impressed me. Amanda (Deborah Ann Woll) has a flashback during one of their escapes and the transition was seamless. Woll's performance overall was probably the best, she goes from vulnerable to woman of action and in each scene she creates something that I found incredibly believable.
Tyler Labine is one of my favourite "hidden" gems of the movie world so I was excited to see he was part of this. My excitement was short lived though as his character wasn't given much opportunity to shine as his story is largely overlooked until the very last minute.
One of the issues I have at the cinema is that I suffer from mild motion sickness, generally I'm okay but on occasion the weirdest things can set it off. This film gave me a near heart attack when it entered the pool room, you can see it during the trailer, the room is basically upside down but that combined with the camera shots meant I had to keep looking at my feet for fear of either passing out or throwing up on my fellow cinema goers.
The idea behind the film had a lot of potential and up to a certain point I was enjoying what was happening... but that ending. My brain suddenly stopped and went "huh, Belko Experiment." I'm not generally a watcher of horror type films but from the comments I've seen online Escape Room is similar to a lot of things already out there. What I know is that it's predictable. Probably more so because of the way the film starts, the premise of an escape room, and the trailer. It does have some things up its sleeve though.
For someone who is easily scared out of their skin I didn't have a problem watching this (apart from that pool room scene), a lot of the really jumpy bits I'd already seen before going into the film. Until the memory of this film is washed away by several dozen other films I will not be setting foot in an escape room, and they should probably look at suing the film for lose of revenue.
What you should do
It's an entertaining film and if thrillers/horrors are your sort of thing then you should give it a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Needless to say there is basically nothing I want from this movie apart from the little piece of sanity and rational thinking it stole from me.
The film opens, somewhat strangely, with some of the last scenes of the movie. I'm not sure whether this helped the film along or not. We already knew what to expect before going in so starting with the intrigue of the invitations probably would have worked just as well, it did at least ease you in to what you'd be getting from the rest of the film.
I was a little disappointed that we didn't get an intro to all of the characters. Admittedly six intro pieces would have made the beginning of the story drag but it felt a little odd to have the other three thrown in with no context. On the plus side you are able to infer some things about their back story as we go through the film, but I don't quite see the logic behind who they included and excluded.
Drama, mystery, sci-fi, thriller... that's how IMDb classified Escape Room, and this is why I don't know why we bother pigeon holing films. It's definitely a thriller and can loosely fit into the horror genre (I only say loosely because of it's lack of gore) but to claim any of the others is a stretch.
In what was probably a rather average film I was glad to see some pieces that impressed me. Amanda (Deborah Ann Woll) has a flashback during one of their escapes and the transition was seamless. Woll's performance overall was probably the best, she goes from vulnerable to woman of action and in each scene she creates something that I found incredibly believable.
Tyler Labine is one of my favourite "hidden" gems of the movie world so I was excited to see he was part of this. My excitement was short lived though as his character wasn't given much opportunity to shine as his story is largely overlooked until the very last minute.
One of the issues I have at the cinema is that I suffer from mild motion sickness, generally I'm okay but on occasion the weirdest things can set it off. This film gave me a near heart attack when it entered the pool room, you can see it during the trailer, the room is basically upside down but that combined with the camera shots meant I had to keep looking at my feet for fear of either passing out or throwing up on my fellow cinema goers.
The idea behind the film had a lot of potential and up to a certain point I was enjoying what was happening... but that ending. My brain suddenly stopped and went "huh, Belko Experiment." I'm not generally a watcher of horror type films but from the comments I've seen online Escape Room is similar to a lot of things already out there. What I know is that it's predictable. Probably more so because of the way the film starts, the premise of an escape room, and the trailer. It does have some things up its sleeve though.
For someone who is easily scared out of their skin I didn't have a problem watching this (apart from that pool room scene), a lot of the really jumpy bits I'd already seen before going into the film. Until the memory of this film is washed away by several dozen other films I will not be setting foot in an escape room, and they should probably look at suing the film for lose of revenue.
What you should do
It's an entertaining film and if thrillers/horrors are your sort of thing then you should give it a go.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Needless to say there is basically nothing I want from this movie apart from the little piece of sanity and rational thinking it stole from me.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Girl with All the Gifts in Books
Mar 15, 2018
I went to see the film adaptation of this on Saturday, and I have to say I was pretty impressed with it! Obviously the book is a whole lot better, but I think they did a pretty good job of transferring the book to screen. The characters felt a bit different to how they came across in the novel, <spoiler> Caldwell was nowhere near as evil and we didn't get to know Parks enough for his death to be that traumatising like it was in the novel</spoiler>, but I'd say it's one of the better book-to-film movies!
---------------------------------------
Also read my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/the-girl-with-all-the-gifts-m-r-carey
<b>4.5 stars</b>
I don’t really want to say a lot about this book, for 2 reasons. Reason one is to keep potential readers in the dark about what this entire book is. I feel like it’s one of those reads where you want to go in blind, it definitely made it more enjoyable for me going into it that way. The second reason is more selfish… I felt a lot of different emotions going through this book, especially within the last 50 pages! I have no desire to relive the rollercoaster I went through! I feel like the emotions from this book are gonna stay with me for a long time, so don’t expect much from this review other than spoilers (which will be hidden) of me getting emotional.
If you’re looking for a book that gets straight into a story then this will definitely please you. There’s no dilly dallying whatsoever, we get into the meat of the book within the first 50 pages which is such a relief because I hate chunky books that seem to take forever to get into the story. I wouldn’t recommend reading this if you have quite serious trypophobia. I have it quite mildly but there were a lot of times where I was reading and getting very panicky and sick feeling because of the grotesque imagery.
Each character is developed so incredibly well, as there aren’t many throughout the book we’ve got loads of time to get to know them with each chapter flitting about between perspectives. <spoiler>MELANIE WAS CUTE AF AND SO MATURE AND LOVELY AND AWW. HELEN WAS BADASS AND SASSY AND AWESOME. PARKS WAS A GENTLE GIANT AND IM SO HAPPY HE GOT TO FUCK HELEN BEFORE HE DIED CAUSE HIS DEATH MADE ME SUPER DUPER SERIOUSLY SAD. CAROLINE WAS A BITCH FROM START TO FINISH, I FELT NO REMORSE FOR HER DEATH, SHE WAS EVIL.</spoiler>
I don’t know if I’d class this as purely a thriller, it’s is also a horror and a sci-fi, which is definitely a great mix. It was definitely a really enjoyable read and I’m looking forward to reading more of Carey’s work. <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26030697-fellside?ac=1&from_search=true">Fellside</a>; is next on my list to read!
---------------------------------------
Also read my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/the-girl-with-all-the-gifts-m-r-carey
<b>4.5 stars</b>
I don’t really want to say a lot about this book, for 2 reasons. Reason one is to keep potential readers in the dark about what this entire book is. I feel like it’s one of those reads where you want to go in blind, it definitely made it more enjoyable for me going into it that way. The second reason is more selfish… I felt a lot of different emotions going through this book, especially within the last 50 pages! I have no desire to relive the rollercoaster I went through! I feel like the emotions from this book are gonna stay with me for a long time, so don’t expect much from this review other than spoilers (which will be hidden) of me getting emotional.
If you’re looking for a book that gets straight into a story then this will definitely please you. There’s no dilly dallying whatsoever, we get into the meat of the book within the first 50 pages which is such a relief because I hate chunky books that seem to take forever to get into the story. I wouldn’t recommend reading this if you have quite serious trypophobia. I have it quite mildly but there were a lot of times where I was reading and getting very panicky and sick feeling because of the grotesque imagery.
Each character is developed so incredibly well, as there aren’t many throughout the book we’ve got loads of time to get to know them with each chapter flitting about between perspectives. <spoiler>MELANIE WAS CUTE AF AND SO MATURE AND LOVELY AND AWW. HELEN WAS BADASS AND SASSY AND AWESOME. PARKS WAS A GENTLE GIANT AND IM SO HAPPY HE GOT TO FUCK HELEN BEFORE HE DIED CAUSE HIS DEATH MADE ME SUPER DUPER SERIOUSLY SAD. CAROLINE WAS A BITCH FROM START TO FINISH, I FELT NO REMORSE FOR HER DEATH, SHE WAS EVIL.</spoiler>
I don’t know if I’d class this as purely a thriller, it’s is also a horror and a sci-fi, which is definitely a great mix. It was definitely a really enjoyable read and I’m looking forward to reading more of Carey’s work. <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26030697-fellside?ac=1&from_search=true">Fellside</a>; is next on my list to read!
JT (287 KP) rated Argo (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Does making a film based on a true story make it any more endearing to the Oscar big wigs? Possibly, but one thing is for sure, Ben Affleck’s third film Argo is an outstanding piece of film making with exceptional attention to detail and sense of realism.
In 1979 Iran was overrun by Iranian revolutionaries, these revolutionaries stormed the American embassy taking several Americans hostage. Six of those managed to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador where the CIA was eventually ordered to get them out of the country by whatever means necessary.
Led by Tony Mendez (Affleck) a CIA expert in exfiltration he puts together an elaborate plan to go in as a film producer and rescue the six who’ll pose as a film crew on a location hunt for new sci-fi flick, Argo. Even if this was fiction it would be a pretty daring plan in an environment that was so hostile for its time they’re hanging people by cranes in the street, and women carry machine guns!
In order to make the film seem as real as possible Mendez enlists the help of John Chambers (John Goodman) a Hollywood make-up artist whose helped the CIA out before and film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). Between them they put the film into fake production, concoct false identities for the six and set about taking them out directly though the Iranian airport in a daring escape.
Affleck gets the cinematography spot on, creating a grainy perspective for that era and using some real footage as well. It all helps convey the narrative and plot that this was one of the most dangerous missions of its time and one what would live long in CIA and American history.
Goodman and Arkin add a humorous element to the proceedings “if it’s going to be a fake film I want it to be a fake hit” Lester claims when he’s approached about the project. The other side feels like a 70s version of 24 with the political suits in boardrooms arguing about the best way to execute the plan.
The tension is built slowly with everything climaxing to a pulsating last act which will have your heart pounding and seat gripped. Personally I didn’t endear to any of the six escapees, their stories are not built up enough other than they’re all unsure if they can trust Mendez to get them back on home soil safely.
Argo got the best picture Oscar over a lot of other seemingly worthy nominees, but you couldn’t deny Affleck his moment in the spotlight and cementing him as one of the best actor to director transitions. While the film might not be entirely accurate, Affleck just wants to get to the heart of this espionage thriller and does so while finding a perfect balance between comedy and drama.
In 1979 Iran was overrun by Iranian revolutionaries, these revolutionaries stormed the American embassy taking several Americans hostage. Six of those managed to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador where the CIA was eventually ordered to get them out of the country by whatever means necessary.
Led by Tony Mendez (Affleck) a CIA expert in exfiltration he puts together an elaborate plan to go in as a film producer and rescue the six who’ll pose as a film crew on a location hunt for new sci-fi flick, Argo. Even if this was fiction it would be a pretty daring plan in an environment that was so hostile for its time they’re hanging people by cranes in the street, and women carry machine guns!
In order to make the film seem as real as possible Mendez enlists the help of John Chambers (John Goodman) a Hollywood make-up artist whose helped the CIA out before and film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). Between them they put the film into fake production, concoct false identities for the six and set about taking them out directly though the Iranian airport in a daring escape.
Affleck gets the cinematography spot on, creating a grainy perspective for that era and using some real footage as well. It all helps convey the narrative and plot that this was one of the most dangerous missions of its time and one what would live long in CIA and American history.
Goodman and Arkin add a humorous element to the proceedings “if it’s going to be a fake film I want it to be a fake hit” Lester claims when he’s approached about the project. The other side feels like a 70s version of 24 with the political suits in boardrooms arguing about the best way to execute the plan.
The tension is built slowly with everything climaxing to a pulsating last act which will have your heart pounding and seat gripped. Personally I didn’t endear to any of the six escapees, their stories are not built up enough other than they’re all unsure if they can trust Mendez to get them back on home soil safely.
Argo got the best picture Oscar over a lot of other seemingly worthy nominees, but you couldn’t deny Affleck his moment in the spotlight and cementing him as one of the best actor to director transitions. While the film might not be entirely accurate, Affleck just wants to get to the heart of this espionage thriller and does so while finding a perfect balance between comedy and drama.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Greta (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I sat down to write up my notes for the weekend's films and I had already forgotten this one. I quite enjoyed it and yet it hasn't really stuck with me at all.
Frances, played by Chloë Grace Moretz, finds a handbag on the subway, unable to hand it in to lost property she takes it home with the intention of returning it the next day. Greta is a lonely widow whose daughter is abroad and she has nothing but her piano and photos for company. When the pair meet they connect immediately and their friendship grows. To say Greta is clingy would be an understatement and when Frances discovers a cupboard full of identical "missing" handbags she knows she needs to get some distance.
Right, so, the idea here relies on someone returning her handbag, admittedly a handbag is less suspicious than a rucksack or a suitcase, but I'm still not convinced. It relies on no one seeing her leave it when she gets up to leave, and no one spotting it when they get on at the stop, and then not a single member of staff being in the subway station to take the bag. Erica says it best, "you call the bomb squad"... yes you do, Erica.
I very much enjoyed the idea of this film, as thrillers go it's a good set up. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by trailers though, and in this instance I think they gave you too many moments that would have given a greater impact as a surprise. It also exposed an inconsistency.
The trailer shows Frances stuck in a lift as it's being crushed. In the context of the full film it made sense, sort of, but it left the question in the trailer of whether it was slightly sci-fi. While I knew what the whole scene was trying to achieve I felt that it was too confusing given the tone everywhere else.
Isabelle Huppert gives her character of Greta a delightfully creepy vibe, always pleasant and threatening at the same time and Chloë Grace Moretz played the naive Frances convincingly, but... I didn't think either particularly hit the spot. Greta was crazy but not devious enough and Frances was bordering on cliche when it came to her naivety.
There are lots of things that caused me issues, the passage of time being a major one. There's no clear idea of how long anything takes, how long their friendship went for, how long she was kidnapped, and it's surprisingly frustrating. I also am at a loss as to why her father resorts to a private investigator over the police, in my head it's because the police are saying she's a grown up and the messages suggest she's fine, but I don't think that's ever explicitly said.
I was getting very mixed tones from the film, first it was a drama, then a thriller, and then it seemed to want to be a horror. There's one point where it gets a little gruesome and it stuck out like a sore thumb. The very end as well, without trying to give spoilers, shows something I would fully expect to see in a horror movie, and in that setting it's a great way to finish it but in Greta seemed like a step in the wrong direction.
I've mentioned before that I don't over think the film while I'm watching it, I try not to look for the twists in advance, but I actually wrote the ending in my notes. While it was satisfying I was right, it was irritating that it was so obvious.
Like I mentioned above, the concept was great and it left a lot of opportunities for a brilliant thriller, but I feel like it just kept missing the point. A lot of the intrigue was stolen by the trailer and the identity crisis with the genre just held it back from what it could have achieved.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, certainly catch it when it goes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to keep a home clutter free like Erica and Frances.
Frances, played by Chloë Grace Moretz, finds a handbag on the subway, unable to hand it in to lost property she takes it home with the intention of returning it the next day. Greta is a lonely widow whose daughter is abroad and she has nothing but her piano and photos for company. When the pair meet they connect immediately and their friendship grows. To say Greta is clingy would be an understatement and when Frances discovers a cupboard full of identical "missing" handbags she knows she needs to get some distance.
Right, so, the idea here relies on someone returning her handbag, admittedly a handbag is less suspicious than a rucksack or a suitcase, but I'm still not convinced. It relies on no one seeing her leave it when she gets up to leave, and no one spotting it when they get on at the stop, and then not a single member of staff being in the subway station to take the bag. Erica says it best, "you call the bomb squad"... yes you do, Erica.
I very much enjoyed the idea of this film, as thrillers go it's a good set up. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by trailers though, and in this instance I think they gave you too many moments that would have given a greater impact as a surprise. It also exposed an inconsistency.
The trailer shows Frances stuck in a lift as it's being crushed. In the context of the full film it made sense, sort of, but it left the question in the trailer of whether it was slightly sci-fi. While I knew what the whole scene was trying to achieve I felt that it was too confusing given the tone everywhere else.
Isabelle Huppert gives her character of Greta a delightfully creepy vibe, always pleasant and threatening at the same time and Chloë Grace Moretz played the naive Frances convincingly, but... I didn't think either particularly hit the spot. Greta was crazy but not devious enough and Frances was bordering on cliche when it came to her naivety.
There are lots of things that caused me issues, the passage of time being a major one. There's no clear idea of how long anything takes, how long their friendship went for, how long she was kidnapped, and it's surprisingly frustrating. I also am at a loss as to why her father resorts to a private investigator over the police, in my head it's because the police are saying she's a grown up and the messages suggest she's fine, but I don't think that's ever explicitly said.
I was getting very mixed tones from the film, first it was a drama, then a thriller, and then it seemed to want to be a horror. There's one point where it gets a little gruesome and it stuck out like a sore thumb. The very end as well, without trying to give spoilers, shows something I would fully expect to see in a horror movie, and in that setting it's a great way to finish it but in Greta seemed like a step in the wrong direction.
I've mentioned before that I don't over think the film while I'm watching it, I try not to look for the twists in advance, but I actually wrote the ending in my notes. While it was satisfying I was right, it was irritating that it was so obvious.
Like I mentioned above, the concept was great and it left a lot of opportunities for a brilliant thriller, but I feel like it just kept missing the point. A lot of the intrigue was stolen by the trailer and the identity crisis with the genre just held it back from what it could have achieved.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, certainly catch it when it goes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to keep a home clutter free like Erica and Frances.