Search
Search results
Lola Panda’s Math Train 2 – Learn Counting, Addition, and Subtraction with Lola!
Games and Education
App
Lola is back for even more math train adventures in Lola’s Math Train 2! Even more challenging...
Nighty Night Circus - bedtime story for kids
Education and Book
App
“Nighty Night Circus“ is the sequel to the most popular bedtime app of all time, Apple App of...
On the Bright Side, I'm Now the Girlfriend of a Sex God (Confessions of Georgia Nicolson #2)
8.0
Rate It
Book
You don't have to be a teenager to appreciate the humorous and often self-absorbed ravings found in...
TheFiend13420 (21 KP) rated Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) in Movies
Jun 2, 2022
Some inventive chainsaw massacr...ing (2 more)
Excellent Work by Leatherface Actor Mark Burnham
The Fucking Bus....
It's About Freaking Time!!!!!
Contains spoilers, click to show
I always go into a Chainsaw Massacre movie with as open of a mind as I can. Knowing full well, that the last few entries haven't been up to par.
Netflix....you beautiful bastards you...
From beginning to end, this film kept me going. I sat, literally on the edge of my chair the entire time. Waiting to see what this big, Momma face wearing Slasher would do next.
The first kill nearly made me spit out my Coke. I wasn't expecting such ferocity of the hop.
The writers making this a true after the first film sequel, did everything right in my book.
The cast, minus the lead, Sarah Yarkin, were not your basic, run into the basement kind of kids that have been cannon fodder for good ol' Leatherface in the past. They seemed as logical as they could for a bunch of 20 somethings fending off a once dormant serial killer, who has been woken by the death of his 'Mother'.
Yarkin, who was playing main character Melody, seemed to try and grasp hold of the Scream Queen crown left behind by prior Chainsaw Final Girls Marilyn Burns and Jessica Biel, but failed miserably. She is the one thing out of this movie that I just couldn't get in to.
And, I will admit. That ending. While waiting for the basic good old jump scare. I sat, clenching the sides of the chair I was in, waiting anxiously for it to come. And when it finally did. It did not disappoint.
Look out for a stand out preformance by Olwen Fouere, who plays the role of Sally Hardesty. The lone survivor of the original 1974 film. As well as Mark Burnham as Leatherface and Elsie Fisher as Lila, Mel's sister, and a survivor in her own right.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre was one of the first films in the horror genre that I ever seen. Leatherface will always hold a special place in my Dark little heart. And after some clusterfuck films in the series. It's nice to have one strike a chord and make me want more.
Netflix....you beautiful bastards you...
From beginning to end, this film kept me going. I sat, literally on the edge of my chair the entire time. Waiting to see what this big, Momma face wearing Slasher would do next.
The first kill nearly made me spit out my Coke. I wasn't expecting such ferocity of the hop.
The writers making this a true after the first film sequel, did everything right in my book.
The cast, minus the lead, Sarah Yarkin, were not your basic, run into the basement kind of kids that have been cannon fodder for good ol' Leatherface in the past. They seemed as logical as they could for a bunch of 20 somethings fending off a once dormant serial killer, who has been woken by the death of his 'Mother'.
Yarkin, who was playing main character Melody, seemed to try and grasp hold of the Scream Queen crown left behind by prior Chainsaw Final Girls Marilyn Burns and Jessica Biel, but failed miserably. She is the one thing out of this movie that I just couldn't get in to.
And, I will admit. That ending. While waiting for the basic good old jump scare. I sat, clenching the sides of the chair I was in, waiting anxiously for it to come. And when it finally did. It did not disappoint.
Look out for a stand out preformance by Olwen Fouere, who plays the role of Sally Hardesty. The lone survivor of the original 1974 film. As well as Mark Burnham as Leatherface and Elsie Fisher as Lila, Mel's sister, and a survivor in her own right.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre was one of the first films in the horror genre that I ever seen. Leatherface will always hold a special place in my Dark little heart. And after some clusterfuck films in the series. It's nice to have one strike a chord and make me want more.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) in Movies
May 11, 2022
I've taken a few days since seeing Multiverse of Madness to try and digest it as a whole, and decide how I felt about it. It's certainly wild, and leaves a hefty impression. My initial reservations stem from a couple of elements. Firstly, due to the nature of the multiverse, there are some big set pieces and character moments that feel a bit inconsequential. I hope that future projects might reveist these moments and the subsequent fallout from them, but I've got a sneaky feeling that might not happen. Secondly, there's a massive plot point that drives the entire movie that feels a little unearned, even if the execution packs a hell of a punch.
Overall though, I feel that these are minor detriments to what is a spectacular, and comic-book-as-fuck MCU entry, an entry that carries a unique signature, thanks in no small part to its director. It's no secret that I'm a big ol' Sam Raimi fan, and the entirety of MoM feels like a film straight from his mind. Sure, it has the standard Marvel Studios template, but his style shines through with little effort. There are definitely some moments that feel like a gateway horror flick, and even a bit of splatter that you might not expect from an MCU movie. There's even a few Evil Dead references chucked in for good measure.
It terms of wider connections, there's a lot goinh on here. The narrative does a lot to establish Dr Strange as a major player going forward, and introduces a great deep cut from the comics in America Chavez, another character that would fit right in with a Young Avenger film that is surely not too far off. It's also the first theater release to really feel impacted by the Disney+ shows, essentially acting as not just a sequel to Doctor Strange and No Way Home, but to WandaVision as well. On that note, Elizabeth Olsen all but steals the show here, and it's quite glorious. Elsewhere, the multiverse ensures that there are some crazy set pieces, and some fun cameos that will surely have fans talking and speculating for quite some time.
If nothing else, MoM is an incredibly fun Sam Raimi film, and a solid entry into the wider MCU, and I'm happy with that result.
Overall though, I feel that these are minor detriments to what is a spectacular, and comic-book-as-fuck MCU entry, an entry that carries a unique signature, thanks in no small part to its director. It's no secret that I'm a big ol' Sam Raimi fan, and the entirety of MoM feels like a film straight from his mind. Sure, it has the standard Marvel Studios template, but his style shines through with little effort. There are definitely some moments that feel like a gateway horror flick, and even a bit of splatter that you might not expect from an MCU movie. There's even a few Evil Dead references chucked in for good measure.
It terms of wider connections, there's a lot goinh on here. The narrative does a lot to establish Dr Strange as a major player going forward, and introduces a great deep cut from the comics in America Chavez, another character that would fit right in with a Young Avenger film that is surely not too far off. It's also the first theater release to really feel impacted by the Disney+ shows, essentially acting as not just a sequel to Doctor Strange and No Way Home, but to WandaVision as well. On that note, Elizabeth Olsen all but steals the show here, and it's quite glorious. Elsewhere, the multiverse ensures that there are some crazy set pieces, and some fun cameos that will surely have fans talking and speculating for quite some time.
If nothing else, MoM is an incredibly fun Sam Raimi film, and a solid entry into the wider MCU, and I'm happy with that result.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 13, 2020
Disney: "We're making a film of Artemis Fowl!"
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Me: *wildly switches from happiness to devastation about the possibilities*
Artemis Fowl's father, Artemis Fowl Snr., has gone missing, the media is portraying him as a criminal and calling for answers. Shocked and confused by what's happening Artemis Jnr. receives a phone call from his father's kidnapper and must hand over an item to secure his release. But he's no idea what the item is, or where, he's about to learn a great deal about fantastical things in a very short space of time and meet an odd selection of new friends.
So... I'm going to break this down into two parts, the first bit will be just about the film and the second will be me ranting about the film in conjunction with the book... *calm thoughts* Let us begin.
From the very beginning I was thrown, the opening in no way seems like a family film and I was wondering if by avoiding reading about it all beforehand that I'd got the wrong idea about what to expect.
With such a good cast backing up our newcomers I had medium hopes for what was going to hit our screens...
Ferdia Shaw takes on the part of Artemis Fowl Jnr., putting aside the comparison between the two versions until later, the performance isn't bad but it's quite forgettable. The same sadly goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short. Neither one has much of a presence on screen and I think that's mostly to do with the fact that Artemis and Holly are both rather bland in the whole story.
There's something oddly appealing about Josh Gad as Mulch but I'm not sure that giving him such a large role as narrator worked. It's never really clear why he's given that role and the scene's where we cut back to him talking are given a strange noir look that doesn't match with the rest of the film. Even so, I'm willing to concede that he's my favourite character as he has just enough humour to carry it.
Judi Dench as Commander Root was a little bit of a challenge to see. Root is a gruff but caring character, the trouble come in the fact that the change comes quite unnaturally at times.
One of the main failings is that there are times when the script feels poor, the dialogue is a little forced and doesn't fit with the characters, couple that with a variety of scenes that don't fit with the style of everything else and the fact that some pieces could be removed without really affecting anything around it and I'm left less than inspired by the film.
I did like the look of Haven City, the animation of the overhead view looked really promising. As we got into the city though I couldn't help but think it looked a little cheap and the aesthetic wasn't great. Effects, in general, were not good if I'm honest, particularly when you get to the siege on Fowl manor, when the siege is ending it comes with some chaos that is a perfect example of this coupled with another example of how the story glosses over an explanation of what's happening that could have offered some extra development for characters. (Specifically in this instance, Foley, who was woefully underused. He might not have been as majestic as a Brosnan centaur but he deserved better than the film gave him.)
By the end a lot of things get resolved seemingly by fairy magic because it's not clear how any of it happens. Potentially it's something that I wouldn't have noticed as there's a certain amount of this kind of wrapping up that you can forgive, but by this point I was so frustrated by everything that I was spotting everything.
I'm aware I'm waffling more than I intended so let me "briefly" mention things regarding the book...
The film is, in my opinion, only vaguely based on the book. It has kept ideas and pieces of story while removing and adding characters to varying degrees. Notably Artemis' mother is gone and his father is there instead. Removing mum makes Juliet's inclusion surplus to requirements, I can understand wanting to keep her for a young female character for viewers to identify with, but the role she ends up with is bland and in no way lives up to the book's version. The blandness also extends to her brother, Butler, and that's partly because of the major change they made...
Artemis. He is barely recognisable in comparison. He's a jeans-wearing, surfing, tween? He's much more casual than the original and this fluffier version doesn't have the same edge that book Artemis does. In their revamp they have changed his story and I very quickly felt like it could have been a sequel to the books, Artemis Snr. felt more like the Artemis from the books grown up and he was teaching his son about all the things he learnt. Part of the thing I enjoyed about the books is that Artemis was always an anti-hero of sorts, he was very difficult to like at times because of his actions, film Artemis is a little bit jumbled in this respect as they give him a very clear reason for the things he does so when he tries to show that tough side it doesn't have any impact.
There are a lot of differences, but I will leave that analysis for someone who is much more thorough at scouring the books and film than I am. I'll be keeping my eye out for other reviews with the comparisons in, if you spot any then please leave a link in the comments below.
When it came to scoring this I thought about it on two levels.
As a film from such a big company I was quite shocked by the quality of script and effects, there was a baddie that didn't really participate in anything and there were scenes and characters which weren't needed... and to finish it off in such an obvious set up for a sequel... I was done. I had marked it down for a generous score of 2 stars, that's normally my "I didn't like it but I can see why other people might" score, but I can't quite see what would appeal to people in it if I'm honest.
As an adaptation of the book I was too frustrated by the changes they made to Artemis, they essentially changed the fundamentals of the character and that had a knock-on effect to other characters as well. No one came out unscathed, but even though Mulch was heavily adapted I was glad that some of his humour was still there. Scoring on this basis I would have given it 1 star, but again, that felt generous to me.
In the end I will always score something on my enjoyment, in this instance it seems fair to even out the two scores. They've taken a great book and removed most of its personality, the final product was not exciting to watch and I don't think I could bring myself to watch a sequel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/artemis-fowl-movie-review.html
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Collector in Books
May 4, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Whenever you move to a small town, there is always a hidden secret. When one of those secrets is children going missing, it makes for a great horror story. But 'the Collector' makes for an okay one,with most of its twist and turns being highly predictable.
Josie, the main character of 'the Collector,' has just been uprooted from Chicago with her younger sister, Anna, after their single mother just lost her job. They move in with their ailing grandmother in a small town far away, where she warns the girls to never enter the woods that surround her house. Very early in the book (literally within the first ten pages), Josie and Anna hear a voice coming from the forbidden woods, calling out their names. This isn't the best horror book I've ever read, but it has its quirks.
The reader gets to follow Josie through the story, from her time at a new school to nightmare fueled dreams. She watches her mother take care of her grandmother, who has Alzheimer's, but the grandmother constantly speaks of someone named Beryl, and how this woman knows and wants Josie and Anna. Fortunately, Josie meets a girl at her new school named Vanessa, who becomes a quick friend. Josie speaks about the woods around her grandmother's house, and how she and her sister weren't allowed to enter them, but Vanessa believes there's nothing to worry about: " 'There's nothing to be scared of in the woods,' she said. Her voice sounded different. Flat. Like she was reciting a line from a story she'd read, but didn't believe. 'It's just trees and animals.' "
Josie and Anna soon go over to Vanessa's house, where she lives with her aunt. Little did they know that the house was the one in the forbidden woods that their grandmother warned them about. Josie ignores the rule and enters the home; inside, they are met with a hoarding collection of porcelain dolls, lining the walls and the floors of the entire house. Although Josie has had dreams about this house before even meeting Vanessa, including a life-size doll that answered the door(which she later states looked just like Vanessa), she didn't put the easily accessible puzzle pieces together.
Ignoring the obvious, Josie invites Vanessa over for a sleep-over, where we witness Josie's grandmother instantly recognizing her friend. Vanessa quickly leaves, taking off into the woods towards her home without giving an excuse or getting her overnight bag. When Josie asks her grandmother how she knew Vanessa, her grandmother replies: " 'Beryl is coming!'... 'You've brought her in here. I can't protect you. Not anymore.' "
Josie becomes angry and decides to confront her friend, Vanessa, and find out why she left the way that she did. When she reaches Vanessa's house in the woods, she can hear her crying,but there's another voice - a voice from Josie's dreams of none other than Beryl! Josie overhears Beryl demanding that Vanessa bring her another child for her collection.
Anyone who ever enjoyed R.L. Stine's 'Goosebumps' or 'Fear Street' series will enjoy this book. The story follows the basics of all young adult horror books: one pre-teen/teen experiences something supernatural, and no one believes them, so they are left to fend off the threat by themselves. But this one leaves out the teen drama of a blossoming romance with a boy-crazy girl, instead focusing on an older sister's love for her sibling. "I felt I should apologize to her before dinner. I should try and show her that I was sorry by offering to bring her food or something. I had to protect her, and that meant she had to trust me again."
One aspect that was needed was character development - there is such a lack of backstory that the reader can't bring themselves to care about any of the characters. Alexander keeps the story going with no lulls of teen life, but very little human interaction. Josie spends a lot of time with her younger sister, Anna, but the interactions are quick and seem unimportant.
'The Collector' is good for a quick read with a few scares here and there. I would recommend this book for pre-teens that are interested in horror genre books, but not wanting to deal with the nightmares that horror books for an older generation might bring. Although the ending of the book seemed rush, with a quick death of our villain by the hands of Josie, we are left with an opening for a possible sequel: "Slowly, I opened my eyes, tried to make my vision adjuts. I couldn't believe what I saw. There was a doll on my nightstand. A doll that looked an awful lot like Beryl. " It ends like most horror movies end, but was it good enough for a sequel? I don't think so.
Josie, the main character of 'the Collector,' has just been uprooted from Chicago with her younger sister, Anna, after their single mother just lost her job. They move in with their ailing grandmother in a small town far away, where she warns the girls to never enter the woods that surround her house. Very early in the book (literally within the first ten pages), Josie and Anna hear a voice coming from the forbidden woods, calling out their names. This isn't the best horror book I've ever read, but it has its quirks.
The reader gets to follow Josie through the story, from her time at a new school to nightmare fueled dreams. She watches her mother take care of her grandmother, who has Alzheimer's, but the grandmother constantly speaks of someone named Beryl, and how this woman knows and wants Josie and Anna. Fortunately, Josie meets a girl at her new school named Vanessa, who becomes a quick friend. Josie speaks about the woods around her grandmother's house, and how she and her sister weren't allowed to enter them, but Vanessa believes there's nothing to worry about: " 'There's nothing to be scared of in the woods,' she said. Her voice sounded different. Flat. Like she was reciting a line from a story she'd read, but didn't believe. 'It's just trees and animals.' "
Josie and Anna soon go over to Vanessa's house, where she lives with her aunt. Little did they know that the house was the one in the forbidden woods that their grandmother warned them about. Josie ignores the rule and enters the home; inside, they are met with a hoarding collection of porcelain dolls, lining the walls and the floors of the entire house. Although Josie has had dreams about this house before even meeting Vanessa, including a life-size doll that answered the door(which she later states looked just like Vanessa), she didn't put the easily accessible puzzle pieces together.
Ignoring the obvious, Josie invites Vanessa over for a sleep-over, where we witness Josie's grandmother instantly recognizing her friend. Vanessa quickly leaves, taking off into the woods towards her home without giving an excuse or getting her overnight bag. When Josie asks her grandmother how she knew Vanessa, her grandmother replies: " 'Beryl is coming!'... 'You've brought her in here. I can't protect you. Not anymore.' "
Josie becomes angry and decides to confront her friend, Vanessa, and find out why she left the way that she did. When she reaches Vanessa's house in the woods, she can hear her crying,but there's another voice - a voice from Josie's dreams of none other than Beryl! Josie overhears Beryl demanding that Vanessa bring her another child for her collection.
Anyone who ever enjoyed R.L. Stine's 'Goosebumps' or 'Fear Street' series will enjoy this book. The story follows the basics of all young adult horror books: one pre-teen/teen experiences something supernatural, and no one believes them, so they are left to fend off the threat by themselves. But this one leaves out the teen drama of a blossoming romance with a boy-crazy girl, instead focusing on an older sister's love for her sibling. "I felt I should apologize to her before dinner. I should try and show her that I was sorry by offering to bring her food or something. I had to protect her, and that meant she had to trust me again."
One aspect that was needed was character development - there is such a lack of backstory that the reader can't bring themselves to care about any of the characters. Alexander keeps the story going with no lulls of teen life, but very little human interaction. Josie spends a lot of time with her younger sister, Anna, but the interactions are quick and seem unimportant.
'The Collector' is good for a quick read with a few scares here and there. I would recommend this book for pre-teens that are interested in horror genre books, but not wanting to deal with the nightmares that horror books for an older generation might bring. Although the ending of the book seemed rush, with a quick death of our villain by the hands of Josie, we are left with an opening for a possible sequel: "Slowly, I opened my eyes, tried to make my vision adjuts. I couldn't believe what I saw. There was a doll on my nightstand. A doll that looked an awful lot like Beryl. " It ends like most horror movies end, but was it good enough for a sequel? I don't think so.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Has pixar got it's mojo back?
Pixar has been on something of a downward trend of late, and that’s something I never thought I’d say. As much as it hurts, films like Cars 3, Finding Dory and The Good Dinosaur just don’t cut the mustard when compared to some of the studio’s greats.
Movies like Up, Inside Out and Wall.E as well as The Incredibles, which we’re finally getting a sequel to this year, are up there with the best animations ever produced, never mind just from Pixar. Hoping to get back on the right track this year, Pixar has released Coco. But are we back up to scratch?
Before we begin. Did you know you can now vote in the third annual Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars? Vote for your favourite films from last year!
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, young Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colourful Land of the Dead. After meeting a charming trickster named Héctor (Gael García Bernal), the two new friends embark on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
The first thing of note is just how stunning Coco is to look at. Director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) creates what could be Pixar’s finest looking film to date, it really is that staggering to watch. The colourful world of the Land of the Dead is astounding and it’s pleasing that he chooses to spend the majority of the film’s runtime here. Populated by vibrant animals and the living dead, it grabs attention from scene to scene and isn’t afraid to hold on.
The animation itself is spot on, but come on, this is Pixar we’re talking about, we expect nothing less. They really are getting very good at this photo-realistic scenery business and aside from the naturally carnival-esque Land of the Dead, it reeks of realism. The characters too are rendered in ridiculously detailed CGI with the work done on Coco herself being absolutely exquisite. Every well-deserved wrinkle and the remaining twinkle in her eyes – it’s all there.
Aside from all the spectacle though, at its heart, Coco is a film about family, and the importance of family no matter how annoying or frustrating they can be. This may sound a little straightforward in comparison to some of Pixar’s more mature themes, but it’s worth noting that the plot has more twists and turns in it than some of the best thrillers – it’s a brilliant story full of laughs and emotion.
The voice work done by the entire cast is absolutely sublime, but Anthony Gonzalez’s portrayal of Miguel is beautiful. His performance is perfectly integrated into the film as Miguel slowly unravels who he truly is – it’s a testament to the actors and actresses who lent their voices that it speaks to absolutely everyone in the audience.
Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story
Naturally, Pixar’s trademark wit and heart are here in spades. There are some genuinely funny moments that are beautifully juxtaposed with some more sombre scenes that make you realise just how important family is. Correctly awarded a PG certification by the BBFC means that smaller children may find some of the more adult themes a little hard to watch. In fact, there were a few children in floods of tears as I left the cinema.
Pacing wise, Coco is just about right for a family friendly film. At a shade under 110 minutes, it zips along smoothly, very rarely letting up pace. But Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story. In this respect, it’s up there with the very best the studio has to offer us.
It is unfortunate however that there is no Pixar Short attached to Coco. Films like Inside Out and Toy Story 3 had brilliant pre-movie films to get the kids interested in what they were about to see on screen. It’s not clear why Pixar chose to snub Coco like this, but that’s one of the only negative points in a film filled to the brim with memorable moments.
Overall, Pixar is well and truly back on track with Coco. They’ve managed to create a film that not only creates some new classic characters for the studio to bring back in a sequel, but they discuss life and death in a way that adults and children alike will enjoy. Couple this with a beautiful soundtrack with some gorgeous original songs, stunning animation and a heartfelt story and they’ve definitely recovered the animation crown. What a way to start 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/13/coco-review-has-pixar-got-its-mojo-back/
Movies like Up, Inside Out and Wall.E as well as The Incredibles, which we’re finally getting a sequel to this year, are up there with the best animations ever produced, never mind just from Pixar. Hoping to get back on the right track this year, Pixar has released Coco. But are we back up to scratch?
Before we begin. Did you know you can now vote in the third annual Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars? Vote for your favourite films from last year!
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, young Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colourful Land of the Dead. After meeting a charming trickster named Héctor (Gael García Bernal), the two new friends embark on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
The first thing of note is just how stunning Coco is to look at. Director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) creates what could be Pixar’s finest looking film to date, it really is that staggering to watch. The colourful world of the Land of the Dead is astounding and it’s pleasing that he chooses to spend the majority of the film’s runtime here. Populated by vibrant animals and the living dead, it grabs attention from scene to scene and isn’t afraid to hold on.
The animation itself is spot on, but come on, this is Pixar we’re talking about, we expect nothing less. They really are getting very good at this photo-realistic scenery business and aside from the naturally carnival-esque Land of the Dead, it reeks of realism. The characters too are rendered in ridiculously detailed CGI with the work done on Coco herself being absolutely exquisite. Every well-deserved wrinkle and the remaining twinkle in her eyes – it’s all there.
Aside from all the spectacle though, at its heart, Coco is a film about family, and the importance of family no matter how annoying or frustrating they can be. This may sound a little straightforward in comparison to some of Pixar’s more mature themes, but it’s worth noting that the plot has more twists and turns in it than some of the best thrillers – it’s a brilliant story full of laughs and emotion.
The voice work done by the entire cast is absolutely sublime, but Anthony Gonzalez’s portrayal of Miguel is beautiful. His performance is perfectly integrated into the film as Miguel slowly unravels who he truly is – it’s a testament to the actors and actresses who lent their voices that it speaks to absolutely everyone in the audience.
Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story
Naturally, Pixar’s trademark wit and heart are here in spades. There are some genuinely funny moments that are beautifully juxtaposed with some more sombre scenes that make you realise just how important family is. Correctly awarded a PG certification by the BBFC means that smaller children may find some of the more adult themes a little hard to watch. In fact, there were a few children in floods of tears as I left the cinema.
Pacing wise, Coco is just about right for a family friendly film. At a shade under 110 minutes, it zips along smoothly, very rarely letting up pace. But Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story. In this respect, it’s up there with the very best the studio has to offer us.
It is unfortunate however that there is no Pixar Short attached to Coco. Films like Inside Out and Toy Story 3 had brilliant pre-movie films to get the kids interested in what they were about to see on screen. It’s not clear why Pixar chose to snub Coco like this, but that’s one of the only negative points in a film filled to the brim with memorable moments.
Overall, Pixar is well and truly back on track with Coco. They’ve managed to create a film that not only creates some new classic characters for the studio to bring back in a sequel, but they discuss life and death in a way that adults and children alike will enjoy. Couple this with a beautiful soundtrack with some gorgeous original songs, stunning animation and a heartfelt story and they’ve definitely recovered the animation crown. What a way to start 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/13/coco-review-has-pixar-got-its-mojo-back/
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Fractured in Books
Dec 13, 2019
Genre: Science Fiction
Page Count: 198
My rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars
I am many things. A man. A soldier. Trained to kill. Born to hunt. Focused and lethal.
Nothing gets through the stoic control that hides my inner animal, an animal that simmers with rage and power. And that power makes me the perfect assassin. My first task—eliminate the vile head of a science lab responsible for creating and distributing a cruel mutation. Easy. And almost done when suddenly she invades my world.
Charlotte—petite, beautiful, and sexy as hell—a cop who claims a past with me that I don’t remember. At all. Suddenly she’s everywhere, interfering, asking too many questions, endangering herself and my mission, and pushing buttons I didn’t know I had. A dangerous distraction. My beast is captivated but suspicious, torn between wanting to sink teeth into her and wanting to sink teeth into her. My body craves her.
But I don’t remember her. I don’t trust her. And I don’t trust myself around her. Who is she? Is she lying? And do I have enough control to not be blinded by her? To protect my secrets and uncover hers? And who pays the price?
First of all, I’m so, so happy this book was from Kellan’s point of view. He’s very private and evasive, preferring to give into his near-constant lust than focus on the task at hand. Frankly, I don’t understand what makes him such a good soldier. Sure, he’s deadly and can shift into a killing machine– when he’s not too busy staring at Charlotte’s ass.
If the book was from Charlotte’s point of view, Kellan would have been completely unsympathetic. But after reading his thoughts and seeing how much he cares for Charlotte, I like him a little more. I especially like how he acknowledges Charlotte’s ability to take of herself. After all, she is a cop, not a damsel in distress.
Charlotte actually reminds me a lot of Meg.
Charlotte was pretty good. She’s definitely a badass and I liked seeing a glimpse into her work life. She’s calm and peaceful, which is a good contrast to Kellan. But honestly, I’m not sure they’re a good fit.
I love how she’s not afraid of him even though he was so afraid of hurting her. And it’s really obvious how much they care about each other. I also can’t deny that I loved the sex scenes. But Kellan and Charlotte’s relationship still felt pretty toxic.
Not only does he have to keep everything a secret from her, but he also knocked her out and tied her up, supposedly for her own protection. Less than an hour later, they’re having sex. After the sex, he still won’t tell her what happened to him, and he laughs and ties her back up again because she’s pissed and he finds it cute. Seriously, she had a legitimate reason to be angry and he does the caveman version of “calm down”.
A lot of things don’t make sense to me. Kellan is trying to keep Charlotte a secret from his boss, but he brings Charlotte to his apartment and gives her his phone number. As if his boss, who is running a classified military operation, doesn’t have cameras in Kellan’s apartment and hasn’t bugged his phone.
However, I can forgive other things, like how he thinks his boss, who is anonymous and only communicates with a voice disguising device, is not sketchy at all. Judging by how Kellan acts when on the phone with him, I think he’s being hypnotized and that’s why he has amnesia. It would explain a lot. So maybe that can make up for some of his behavior.
The ending was abrupt and didn’t feel like an ending. Which makes sense considering there’s a sequel. I’m definitely going to read the sequel eventually because I want to find out what happened. However, I think I would have enjoyed this more if books 1 and 2 were combined into one complete book. There was no real closure for the first book. It barely even felt like a chapter ending, let alone a story ending.
If you want to read Fractured, plan on reading both at the same time. This is a good fit for those looking for a shifter romance full of steamy sex scenes and an alpha hero. However, I’m rating it only a 3.5 out of 5 stars because Kellan and the plot confused me.
Get Fractured at your local bookstore or your favorite online retailer.
Zelly Jordan was generous enough to donate to Trees for the Future in exchange for this review. Find out how you can do the same.
The Indiebound link in this post is an affiliate link, meaning I get a small commission every time you purchase a book through that link, but at no additional cost to you. I donate half of my affiliate earnings to Trees for the Future.
Page Count: 198
My rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars
I am many things. A man. A soldier. Trained to kill. Born to hunt. Focused and lethal.
Nothing gets through the stoic control that hides my inner animal, an animal that simmers with rage and power. And that power makes me the perfect assassin. My first task—eliminate the vile head of a science lab responsible for creating and distributing a cruel mutation. Easy. And almost done when suddenly she invades my world.
Charlotte—petite, beautiful, and sexy as hell—a cop who claims a past with me that I don’t remember. At all. Suddenly she’s everywhere, interfering, asking too many questions, endangering herself and my mission, and pushing buttons I didn’t know I had. A dangerous distraction. My beast is captivated but suspicious, torn between wanting to sink teeth into her and wanting to sink teeth into her. My body craves her.
But I don’t remember her. I don’t trust her. And I don’t trust myself around her. Who is she? Is she lying? And do I have enough control to not be blinded by her? To protect my secrets and uncover hers? And who pays the price?
First of all, I’m so, so happy this book was from Kellan’s point of view. He’s very private and evasive, preferring to give into his near-constant lust than focus on the task at hand. Frankly, I don’t understand what makes him such a good soldier. Sure, he’s deadly and can shift into a killing machine– when he’s not too busy staring at Charlotte’s ass.
If the book was from Charlotte’s point of view, Kellan would have been completely unsympathetic. But after reading his thoughts and seeing how much he cares for Charlotte, I like him a little more. I especially like how he acknowledges Charlotte’s ability to take of herself. After all, she is a cop, not a damsel in distress.
Charlotte actually reminds me a lot of Meg.
Charlotte was pretty good. She’s definitely a badass and I liked seeing a glimpse into her work life. She’s calm and peaceful, which is a good contrast to Kellan. But honestly, I’m not sure they’re a good fit.
I love how she’s not afraid of him even though he was so afraid of hurting her. And it’s really obvious how much they care about each other. I also can’t deny that I loved the sex scenes. But Kellan and Charlotte’s relationship still felt pretty toxic.
Not only does he have to keep everything a secret from her, but he also knocked her out and tied her up, supposedly for her own protection. Less than an hour later, they’re having sex. After the sex, he still won’t tell her what happened to him, and he laughs and ties her back up again because she’s pissed and he finds it cute. Seriously, she had a legitimate reason to be angry and he does the caveman version of “calm down”.
A lot of things don’t make sense to me. Kellan is trying to keep Charlotte a secret from his boss, but he brings Charlotte to his apartment and gives her his phone number. As if his boss, who is running a classified military operation, doesn’t have cameras in Kellan’s apartment and hasn’t bugged his phone.
However, I can forgive other things, like how he thinks his boss, who is anonymous and only communicates with a voice disguising device, is not sketchy at all. Judging by how Kellan acts when on the phone with him, I think he’s being hypnotized and that’s why he has amnesia. It would explain a lot. So maybe that can make up for some of his behavior.
The ending was abrupt and didn’t feel like an ending. Which makes sense considering there’s a sequel. I’m definitely going to read the sequel eventually because I want to find out what happened. However, I think I would have enjoyed this more if books 1 and 2 were combined into one complete book. There was no real closure for the first book. It barely even felt like a chapter ending, let alone a story ending.
If you want to read Fractured, plan on reading both at the same time. This is a good fit for those looking for a shifter romance full of steamy sex scenes and an alpha hero. However, I’m rating it only a 3.5 out of 5 stars because Kellan and the plot confused me.
Get Fractured at your local bookstore or your favorite online retailer.
Zelly Jordan was generous enough to donate to Trees for the Future in exchange for this review. Find out how you can do the same.
The Indiebound link in this post is an affiliate link, meaning I get a small commission every time you purchase a book through that link, but at no additional cost to you. I donate half of my affiliate earnings to Trees for the Future.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 10, 2017 (Updated Oct 10, 2017)
Loki was fun to watch. (1 more)
Good SFX.
Totally forgettable villain. (1 more)
Any scene involving Kat Dennings and her intern.
Thor: God Of Meh
In the run up to the release of Thor: Ragnarok, the third Thor movie, I decided to go back and watch the only movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that I have not seen yet. I never had anything against this movie before I saw it, I had just heard it is mediocre and a bit unnecessary and to be honest Thor is one of my least favourite Avengers. Funnily enough what I got was a fairly unnecessary, mediocre superhero sequel with some fun moments sprinkled throughout.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
