Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Terminator Salvation (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
In the year 2018, humans are resisting the machines Skynet created called terminators. John Connor is the man who is destined to lead the resistance. Everything John Connor knows is turned inside out when he comes across Marcus Wright. Marcus was put to death by lethal injection in 2003 for killing his brother and two cops yet here he stands today. When an all out assualt by John's superiors is declared on Skynet, John finds out that Kyle Reese (the man who would eventually become his father) has been captured and will be caught in the blast, he knows his only choice is to join forces with Marcus, rescue the human prisoners, and bring Skynet down.
Christian Bale may have been the biggest disappointment in this film. After everyone heard the sound clip of him blowing up on set at a cinematographer, everybody kind of wondered if Bale's success was getting to his head. Well, it just might have. That clip seemed to run through my mind an awful lot throughout the duration of the film. My biggest complaint was that John Connor yelled the majority of the time, even when there was no reason to. When he did talk normally, he used his Batman voice. It just didn't seem to fit since Bale is more than capable of altering his accent (Harsh Times, Rescue Dawn, The Prestige). It's an issue that was bound to come up eventually, but just didn't really click until now.
The other weak link of the film had to be the dialogue. It is incredibly cheesy at times. At the beginning of the film, one of John Connor's superiors yells, "You tell those men to respond, even if they're dead!" It just seemed to be over the top more often than not. While the dialogue was a bit on the atrocious side, the story did have one interesting element going for it. The entire film revolves around this element and is really the only new factor brought in to the Terminator franchise. While the film had its low points, I kept thinking that the film at least had this going for it. Then the ending rolled around and just completely dropped the ball.
With all the negative components of the film, there are still quite a few pieces of the puzzle that are worth mentioning. The action scenes are beyond superb. The camera always seems to be in the right spot at the right time and it isn't too close, which is a definite plus. It seems to be too close during action sequences and fighting scenes in most films these days and most of the action gets lost in the shuffle (Transformers is a good example). Being able to see everything without wondering what happened to this character or that character is a nice change. Something that should definitely happen more often. The entire scene with The Harvester is pretty phenomenal. There are also quite a few throwbacks to the first two films of the franchise. "Come with me if you want to live," and, "I'll be back," are both used in the film, Kyle Reese uses his signature weapon, a sawn off shotgun, Marcus Wright knocks the windshield out of the wrecking truck in a similar fashion the T-1000 did with the diesel in T2, John Connor cocking a gun and firing at a T-800 while being wounded much like Sarah Connor did with the T-1000 while being wounded in T2, and I'm sure quite a few more that I missed.
Sam Worthington should be getting all the attention Christian Bale is for this film. He actually makes you care about Marcus Wright despite what he's done in the past. The way he portrays his emotions and how he's done these horrible things yet is a decent guy deep down inside just makes you want to root for him. Anton Yelchin also deserves a mention. His version of Kyle Reese is pretty much spot on with how you'd imagine a younger version of Kyle Reese to act. His mannerisms, the way he talks, everything. He nailed it.
The sound was also spectacular. Sounds of huge terminators echoed off the walls and made the ground shake, helicoptor blades seemed to chop through the air in violent strokes, motorcycles screeched from one side of the theater to the other to sound like they were going right by you, and you could feel the area around you rumble whenever there was a huge explosion. The sound is definitely a huge aspect of an action film and it really delivered here.
Terminator: Salvation is worth seeing, but being a fan of the franchise and having high expectations may leave you walking away in disappointment. The film doesn't really elaborate on the war between humans and machines or really add anything to the franchise, when all is said and done. If you can somehow remember the first two films yet not compare this sequel with them while ignoring plot holes, Christian Bale's over the top performance, and cheesy dialogue, then you may be able to enjoy Terminator: Salvation to its full extent. But if you're looking for a great action film that fails to expand the Terminator mythos in any way, shape, or form, then this film delivers.
Christian Bale may have been the biggest disappointment in this film. After everyone heard the sound clip of him blowing up on set at a cinematographer, everybody kind of wondered if Bale's success was getting to his head. Well, it just might have. That clip seemed to run through my mind an awful lot throughout the duration of the film. My biggest complaint was that John Connor yelled the majority of the time, even when there was no reason to. When he did talk normally, he used his Batman voice. It just didn't seem to fit since Bale is more than capable of altering his accent (Harsh Times, Rescue Dawn, The Prestige). It's an issue that was bound to come up eventually, but just didn't really click until now.
The other weak link of the film had to be the dialogue. It is incredibly cheesy at times. At the beginning of the film, one of John Connor's superiors yells, "You tell those men to respond, even if they're dead!" It just seemed to be over the top more often than not. While the dialogue was a bit on the atrocious side, the story did have one interesting element going for it. The entire film revolves around this element and is really the only new factor brought in to the Terminator franchise. While the film had its low points, I kept thinking that the film at least had this going for it. Then the ending rolled around and just completely dropped the ball.
With all the negative components of the film, there are still quite a few pieces of the puzzle that are worth mentioning. The action scenes are beyond superb. The camera always seems to be in the right spot at the right time and it isn't too close, which is a definite plus. It seems to be too close during action sequences and fighting scenes in most films these days and most of the action gets lost in the shuffle (Transformers is a good example). Being able to see everything without wondering what happened to this character or that character is a nice change. Something that should definitely happen more often. The entire scene with The Harvester is pretty phenomenal. There are also quite a few throwbacks to the first two films of the franchise. "Come with me if you want to live," and, "I'll be back," are both used in the film, Kyle Reese uses his signature weapon, a sawn off shotgun, Marcus Wright knocks the windshield out of the wrecking truck in a similar fashion the T-1000 did with the diesel in T2, John Connor cocking a gun and firing at a T-800 while being wounded much like Sarah Connor did with the T-1000 while being wounded in T2, and I'm sure quite a few more that I missed.
Sam Worthington should be getting all the attention Christian Bale is for this film. He actually makes you care about Marcus Wright despite what he's done in the past. The way he portrays his emotions and how he's done these horrible things yet is a decent guy deep down inside just makes you want to root for him. Anton Yelchin also deserves a mention. His version of Kyle Reese is pretty much spot on with how you'd imagine a younger version of Kyle Reese to act. His mannerisms, the way he talks, everything. He nailed it.
The sound was also spectacular. Sounds of huge terminators echoed off the walls and made the ground shake, helicoptor blades seemed to chop through the air in violent strokes, motorcycles screeched from one side of the theater to the other to sound like they were going right by you, and you could feel the area around you rumble whenever there was a huge explosion. The sound is definitely a huge aspect of an action film and it really delivered here.
Terminator: Salvation is worth seeing, but being a fan of the franchise and having high expectations may leave you walking away in disappointment. The film doesn't really elaborate on the war between humans and machines or really add anything to the franchise, when all is said and done. If you can somehow remember the first two films yet not compare this sequel with them while ignoring plot holes, Christian Bale's over the top performance, and cheesy dialogue, then you may be able to enjoy Terminator: Salvation to its full extent. But if you're looking for a great action film that fails to expand the Terminator mythos in any way, shape, or form, then this film delivers.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Collector (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Arkin wants to smooth over the rough patch his family is currently going through. He seems like a hard working man that's trying to make a living by doing some housework for a family who lives out in the country. It turns out that Arkin has more problems than he lets on though. His wife, Lisa, has quite a pile of debt resting on her shoulders and the loan sharks want their share that very night. Knowing his paycheck isn't enough to pay for their debt, Arkin assures Lisa that he'll have the money by midnight. Arkin is actually a thief who has been scoping out his employer's property the entire time he's been working for him. With the family away on vacation, the safe behind the mirror in the couple's bedroom is ripe for the taking. Unbeknownst to Arkin, however, is that the family never left and somebody else beat him to the punch. A man who's known as The Collector has already broken into the house Arkin had his eye on. After a quick investigation, Arkin notices the traps The Collector has set up in nearly every room and by every exit. As Arkin weighs his options, he realizes he must try to help the family he originally intended to steal from in a race against time.
The Collector is a film that is somewhat hurt by its own hype. It's written by Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan (who also directs), the writing team who penned the last three Saw films (including part VI). News broke right before its release that the film was almost a prequel to Saw. In the horror community, being a part of the Saw franchise is a rather large achievement. Even if you're not a fan of the franchise, it's hard to deny how well the Saw films do at the box office as their gross revenue is sometimes up to ten times what the film's budget was. The down side is that The Collector seems to make this point blatantly obvious. The film gives off a sense of deja vu throughout its entire duration. The Collector's traps are very reminiscent of Jigsaw's traps, at least in the way they're set up (reverse bear trap in Saw compared to the bear trap scene in The Collector). The Collector also looks and feels like a Saw film. The quick edits that a lot of people expressed their dislike for in Saw are used more often than not in The Collector. Grainy and high contrast filters along with those quick edits make it a bit hard to distinguish what events are actually occurring on screen at times. The first ten minutes or so of the film feel like an extended music video. These qualities don't necessarily make the film bad, but a film that's advertised as being original shouldn't have so much in common with a well distinguished franchise in the same genre; let alone when some of the same people are involved. Something that may have been easily averted if the marketing campaign didn't throw that fact in the public's face.
With all that being said, the film still has enough originality going for it to bring in horror fans. While the film does have its flaws (the main one being, how'd The Collector have time to set up all these traps?), they actually don't take away from the overall enjoyment for the film. What The Collector collects is rather interesting and even with its similarities to Saw, it's an original horror film that isn't a remake. Something we don't see a lot of anymore. What also might make or break the deal for horror fans seeing this film is that it doesn't shy away from blood and guts. The bear trap sequence alone is rather gruesome, but you do get to see some intestines make a cameo. So this definitely isn't for the squeamish. The film did leave a few open-ended questions, but they don't seem to be negative. The most memorable one is more of a sense of wondering why a certain character did a certain act rather than it being a glaring mistake. If this gets turned into a franchise (which depending on its reception, it just might), we'll probably get answers in the sequel(s). The Collector also seemed to establish a bit of tension at times, while the closing moments of the film were similar to a seesaw. The events that unfold seem to be going in one direction, but then quickly shift and go in another direction.
TV spots are saying things like, "Horror has a new icon," and that The Collector is the best horror film to come out in years. While the latter could be debated, the first part of that statement could very well be true. I, personally, wouldn't mind seeing more of The Collector as I like the idea and the character. The film as a whole, however, may have let its influences shine brighter than its original aspects. In retrospect, The Collector is an entertaining horror film composed of a decent antagonist, standard acting, an original storyline, and a few buckets of gore.
The Collector is a film that is somewhat hurt by its own hype. It's written by Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan (who also directs), the writing team who penned the last three Saw films (including part VI). News broke right before its release that the film was almost a prequel to Saw. In the horror community, being a part of the Saw franchise is a rather large achievement. Even if you're not a fan of the franchise, it's hard to deny how well the Saw films do at the box office as their gross revenue is sometimes up to ten times what the film's budget was. The down side is that The Collector seems to make this point blatantly obvious. The film gives off a sense of deja vu throughout its entire duration. The Collector's traps are very reminiscent of Jigsaw's traps, at least in the way they're set up (reverse bear trap in Saw compared to the bear trap scene in The Collector). The Collector also looks and feels like a Saw film. The quick edits that a lot of people expressed their dislike for in Saw are used more often than not in The Collector. Grainy and high contrast filters along with those quick edits make it a bit hard to distinguish what events are actually occurring on screen at times. The first ten minutes or so of the film feel like an extended music video. These qualities don't necessarily make the film bad, but a film that's advertised as being original shouldn't have so much in common with a well distinguished franchise in the same genre; let alone when some of the same people are involved. Something that may have been easily averted if the marketing campaign didn't throw that fact in the public's face.
With all that being said, the film still has enough originality going for it to bring in horror fans. While the film does have its flaws (the main one being, how'd The Collector have time to set up all these traps?), they actually don't take away from the overall enjoyment for the film. What The Collector collects is rather interesting and even with its similarities to Saw, it's an original horror film that isn't a remake. Something we don't see a lot of anymore. What also might make or break the deal for horror fans seeing this film is that it doesn't shy away from blood and guts. The bear trap sequence alone is rather gruesome, but you do get to see some intestines make a cameo. So this definitely isn't for the squeamish. The film did leave a few open-ended questions, but they don't seem to be negative. The most memorable one is more of a sense of wondering why a certain character did a certain act rather than it being a glaring mistake. If this gets turned into a franchise (which depending on its reception, it just might), we'll probably get answers in the sequel(s). The Collector also seemed to establish a bit of tension at times, while the closing moments of the film were similar to a seesaw. The events that unfold seem to be going in one direction, but then quickly shift and go in another direction.
TV spots are saying things like, "Horror has a new icon," and that The Collector is the best horror film to come out in years. While the latter could be debated, the first part of that statement could very well be true. I, personally, wouldn't mind seeing more of The Collector as I like the idea and the character. The film as a whole, however, may have let its influences shine brighter than its original aspects. In retrospect, The Collector is an entertaining horror film composed of a decent antagonist, standard acting, an original storyline, and a few buckets of gore.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
That fateful night in Haddonfield, Laurie Strode shot and killed Michael Myers or so she thought. As the ambulance that pulled what was thought to be the corpse of the world's most notorious serial killer, Michael Myers made sure everyone knew he was still alive the best way he could; by slaughtering whoever got in his way. Now, two years later, Laurie lives with Sheriff Brackett and his daughter Annie. Laurie struggles with hallucinations and panic attacks while believing the therapy she's receiving is only making her worse. As Laurie struggles with her newfound issues, Michael tries to reunite his family. Michael has visions of his mother with a white horse accompanied by his younger self. Michael is returning to Haddonfield to finish the job.
This film has to set the record for dream sequences, which makes you wonder if the entire film is nothing more than a dream. I wasn't exactly a big fan of the remake from 2007 and expectations for this film were incredibly low, nobody can really be prepared for how terrible this film really is. Since there's so much wrong with this film, we'll try and start with what was actually was enjoyable.
Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett is really the highlight of the film as far as acting goes. While that probably isn't saying much and his role isn't as big as you may expect, he does a good job with the screen time he gets. His character is intense right from the start, but as things take a turn for the worse for his character his downward spiral is the most enthralling aspect of the film. A few of the deaths were also really satisfying. Mainly Buddy the Secuirty Guard. There's a night scene where an officer is out on Sheriff Brackett's lawn and we're looking at the silhouette of a tree while the officer searches the premises. Before you know it, we see Michael emerge from that tree silhouette and kill the officer.
Everything else in the film was just horrendous. The flaws are almost so overwhelming that it's nearly impossible to know where to begin. The whole white horse thing is ridiculous. So if Deborah Myers tells young Michael that he can think of her whenever he looks at the white horse figurine she gave him, wouldn't that make her a horse by default? The inconsistencies in the film are incredibly glaring, as well. Laurie and Annie's injuries from the previous film seem more severe at the start of this one, Laurie being able to put weight on an injured leg by walking on it but it causing her extreme pain when she's lifted from a stretcher to a bed at the hospital, Michael chopping off a guy's head with a shard of glass, etc. The "Nights in White Satin" thing was literally beaten into your skull by the time the film ended. If you sit through the film, it's like Rob is sitting next to you each time the song comes on nudging you with his elbow going, "Eh? Do you get it? You get it?"
Michael was way too vocal for my liking. Heavy breathing is one thing, but when we're hearing him grunt loudly every time he stabs somebody then it takes a lot of it. When he actually talked at the end of the film, I was done. He also seemed to spend more time stabbing women than men in the film. Guys get their head chopped off or an axe to the back while women get stabbed a dozen times or have their face smashed against a mirror nine times. The choreography didn't seem as good as the remake either. There's a scene where water gets on the camera and it's on there the entire scene. It's interesting at first, but after a few minutes you just want someone to get a towel to wipe it down.
As powerful as Michael seems to be, it at least made a bit more sense in the original film by John Carpenter. Michael was pure evil. That was the explanation, so him not being able to die at least sort of made sense. Now that he's been given this white trash upbringing in the remake, his super strength and inability to die just seems even more farfetched than it originally did. So when Michael is busting through walls and lifting cars with his bare hands all Incredible Hulk style in this film, it's laughable. Not to mention what happened to the Dr. Loomis character. There are just way too many things wrong with this sequel to list here.
Rob Zombie has certainly made Halloween his own with Halloween II. It's just a shame that it's really not worth watching seriously. Let's put it this way, the highlight of the film is Weird Al's cameo. After five films of dealing with white trash families, it's time for Zombie to move on to something different. It's safe to say he's bled that idea bone dry. I wouldn't seriously recommend this film to anyone, but if you're looking for a film to watch with some friends to laugh at and make fun of while it's going then this is the perfect film.
This film has to set the record for dream sequences, which makes you wonder if the entire film is nothing more than a dream. I wasn't exactly a big fan of the remake from 2007 and expectations for this film were incredibly low, nobody can really be prepared for how terrible this film really is. Since there's so much wrong with this film, we'll try and start with what was actually was enjoyable.
Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett is really the highlight of the film as far as acting goes. While that probably isn't saying much and his role isn't as big as you may expect, he does a good job with the screen time he gets. His character is intense right from the start, but as things take a turn for the worse for his character his downward spiral is the most enthralling aspect of the film. A few of the deaths were also really satisfying. Mainly Buddy the Secuirty Guard. There's a night scene where an officer is out on Sheriff Brackett's lawn and we're looking at the silhouette of a tree while the officer searches the premises. Before you know it, we see Michael emerge from that tree silhouette and kill the officer.
Everything else in the film was just horrendous. The flaws are almost so overwhelming that it's nearly impossible to know where to begin. The whole white horse thing is ridiculous. So if Deborah Myers tells young Michael that he can think of her whenever he looks at the white horse figurine she gave him, wouldn't that make her a horse by default? The inconsistencies in the film are incredibly glaring, as well. Laurie and Annie's injuries from the previous film seem more severe at the start of this one, Laurie being able to put weight on an injured leg by walking on it but it causing her extreme pain when she's lifted from a stretcher to a bed at the hospital, Michael chopping off a guy's head with a shard of glass, etc. The "Nights in White Satin" thing was literally beaten into your skull by the time the film ended. If you sit through the film, it's like Rob is sitting next to you each time the song comes on nudging you with his elbow going, "Eh? Do you get it? You get it?"
Michael was way too vocal for my liking. Heavy breathing is one thing, but when we're hearing him grunt loudly every time he stabs somebody then it takes a lot of it. When he actually talked at the end of the film, I was done. He also seemed to spend more time stabbing women than men in the film. Guys get their head chopped off or an axe to the back while women get stabbed a dozen times or have their face smashed against a mirror nine times. The choreography didn't seem as good as the remake either. There's a scene where water gets on the camera and it's on there the entire scene. It's interesting at first, but after a few minutes you just want someone to get a towel to wipe it down.
As powerful as Michael seems to be, it at least made a bit more sense in the original film by John Carpenter. Michael was pure evil. That was the explanation, so him not being able to die at least sort of made sense. Now that he's been given this white trash upbringing in the remake, his super strength and inability to die just seems even more farfetched than it originally did. So when Michael is busting through walls and lifting cars with his bare hands all Incredible Hulk style in this film, it's laughable. Not to mention what happened to the Dr. Loomis character. There are just way too many things wrong with this sequel to list here.
Rob Zombie has certainly made Halloween his own with Halloween II. It's just a shame that it's really not worth watching seriously. Let's put it this way, the highlight of the film is Weird Al's cameo. After five films of dealing with white trash families, it's time for Zombie to move on to something different. It's safe to say he's bled that idea bone dry. I wouldn't seriously recommend this film to anyone, but if you're looking for a film to watch with some friends to laugh at and make fun of while it's going then this is the perfect film.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The God Game in Books
Nov 7, 2019
While browsing Facebook one day, I came across a book entitled The God Game by Danny Tobey. I was intrigued, so I decided to read more about it. After reading the synopsis, this book reeled me in. I decided to give it a read, and I am very glad I did. The God Game has become one of my favorite reads so far.
With the way the digital age is going, the plot of The God Game sounded like it could already be happening in real life. A bunch of teens decide to play a random game with what they suspect is just some kind of artificial intelligence. However, when God (the AI in The God Game) starts asking them to do some highly illegal and dangerous activities as well as activities that make the teens question their morality, they start to think that maybe they are in over their heads. Will the teens be able to quit the game or will death be the only way out? Don't get me wrong. The plot has been done before, but Danny Tobey put his own original spin on the idea and made it where it comes across as a fresh idea. As I mentioned earlier, The God Game comes across as being very realistic. While I feel that there are no major plot twists and that the book is fairly predictable in some places, The God Game is still a highly entertaining read. Tobey gives his readers enough information at the end of the book to leave them satisfied, but he still leaves it somewhat open ended for a possible sequel.
The God Game flowed very smoothly, and I felt like the pacing was perfect. Not once did I feel like the book became too dull or that it was going to fast. The transitions between chapters was very spot on which made The God Game an easy read for me. It was so easy to lose myself in this novel as I became completely immersed in the world Tobey had created.
A couple of things that kind of bothered me, and they seem to be more personal preference than a fault with the story, is the mentions of politics and how anti-God/Christianity The God Game seemed to be. I'm not a political person by any means. In fact, I don't lean one way or the other when it comes to politics. However, I felt like politics were mentioned way too much in this book. It's very obvious that the author is very anti-Trump. If I wanted to read a book about politics, I'd read a political thriller or something similar. I didn't like how this book seems to poke fun at those that believe in God. It comes across as if the author is trying to challenge the beliefs of those who believe in God. I get that The God Game has God in its title and is about an AI that believes it's God, but I felt that the way the author speaks about God came off as a bit crass. However, those were minor issues for me, and I still enjoyed reading The God Game very much.
I felt that all of the main and supporting characters in The God Game were written superbly. The God Game had such a diverse group of characters throughout which was refreshing to see. I enjoyed reading about Charlie and his thoughts. He seemed conflicted the most with everything that was happening. It was great to read about how much he cared about his friends as well as other people. Charlie came across as a stand up guy. Vanhi was my favorite character. She was such a badass that I couldn't help but to love her! I felt like she was the second most conflicted character. I just felt sorry for what Alex was going through. My heart ached for him. Kenny was a great character too, and it was interesting what the game would ask him to do. I never quite knew what to make of Peter. He was written well, and he came across as very charismatic which made me suspicious of him throughout the whole novel. I did admire how much he would throw himself into something though.
Trigger warnings for The God Game include violence, profanity, drug use, politics, challenging the existence of God, racism, sexual situations (although not graphic), and murder.
Overall, The God Game is a highly thrilling read. With such an interesting cast of characters as well as a highly thought provoking plot, I wouldn't be surprised if The God Game became one of the most sought after books of 2020. It would also make a great film. I would definitely recommend The God Game by Danny Tobey to those aged 16+ who love thrilling plots that really make you think. Give The God Game a read. It will sink its teeth in you from the very first page!
--
(A special thank you to St. Martin's Press for providing me with a paperback ARC of The God Game by Danny Tobey in exchange for an unbiased and honest review.)
With the way the digital age is going, the plot of The God Game sounded like it could already be happening in real life. A bunch of teens decide to play a random game with what they suspect is just some kind of artificial intelligence. However, when God (the AI in The God Game) starts asking them to do some highly illegal and dangerous activities as well as activities that make the teens question their morality, they start to think that maybe they are in over their heads. Will the teens be able to quit the game or will death be the only way out? Don't get me wrong. The plot has been done before, but Danny Tobey put his own original spin on the idea and made it where it comes across as a fresh idea. As I mentioned earlier, The God Game comes across as being very realistic. While I feel that there are no major plot twists and that the book is fairly predictable in some places, The God Game is still a highly entertaining read. Tobey gives his readers enough information at the end of the book to leave them satisfied, but he still leaves it somewhat open ended for a possible sequel.
The God Game flowed very smoothly, and I felt like the pacing was perfect. Not once did I feel like the book became too dull or that it was going to fast. The transitions between chapters was very spot on which made The God Game an easy read for me. It was so easy to lose myself in this novel as I became completely immersed in the world Tobey had created.
A couple of things that kind of bothered me, and they seem to be more personal preference than a fault with the story, is the mentions of politics and how anti-God/Christianity The God Game seemed to be. I'm not a political person by any means. In fact, I don't lean one way or the other when it comes to politics. However, I felt like politics were mentioned way too much in this book. It's very obvious that the author is very anti-Trump. If I wanted to read a book about politics, I'd read a political thriller or something similar. I didn't like how this book seems to poke fun at those that believe in God. It comes across as if the author is trying to challenge the beliefs of those who believe in God. I get that The God Game has God in its title and is about an AI that believes it's God, but I felt that the way the author speaks about God came off as a bit crass. However, those were minor issues for me, and I still enjoyed reading The God Game very much.
I felt that all of the main and supporting characters in The God Game were written superbly. The God Game had such a diverse group of characters throughout which was refreshing to see. I enjoyed reading about Charlie and his thoughts. He seemed conflicted the most with everything that was happening. It was great to read about how much he cared about his friends as well as other people. Charlie came across as a stand up guy. Vanhi was my favorite character. She was such a badass that I couldn't help but to love her! I felt like she was the second most conflicted character. I just felt sorry for what Alex was going through. My heart ached for him. Kenny was a great character too, and it was interesting what the game would ask him to do. I never quite knew what to make of Peter. He was written well, and he came across as very charismatic which made me suspicious of him throughout the whole novel. I did admire how much he would throw himself into something though.
Trigger warnings for The God Game include violence, profanity, drug use, politics, challenging the existence of God, racism, sexual situations (although not graphic), and murder.
Overall, The God Game is a highly thrilling read. With such an interesting cast of characters as well as a highly thought provoking plot, I wouldn't be surprised if The God Game became one of the most sought after books of 2020. It would also make a great film. I would definitely recommend The God Game by Danny Tobey to those aged 16+ who love thrilling plots that really make you think. Give The God Game a read. It will sink its teeth in you from the very first page!
--
(A special thank you to St. Martin's Press for providing me with a paperback ARC of The God Game by Danny Tobey in exchange for an unbiased and honest review.)
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Leveller (The Leveller, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b>I really enjoyed <i>The Leveller</i> on two things: the concept and the writing.</b> But of course, the concept is why I actually read many books. Whether it's good or bad, I have no clue until I actually crack open the book and actually read it.
In a virtual reality gaming world called MEEP, Nixy Bauer helps parents get their wayward kids back from spending too much time in the MEEP quickly and efficiently. Soon enough, she gets a job from the developer and founder of MEEP himself, whose only son has disappeared in the gaming world for several days, leaving behind a suicide note and world filled with horrifying challenges.
I will fully admit <b>I'm a huge fan of technology and cool gadgets</b>, and I honestly loved the technology <i>The Leveller</i> uses. It's <b>quite similar to <i><a title="Grid Seekers by Logan Byrne" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/2015/07/dnf-review-grid-seekers-by-logan-byrne/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Grid Seekers</a></i> but in a gaming direction rather than an everyday-use direction.</b> Durango explains MEEP simply and straightforward: it's a virtual reality where players can create their own worlds with their minds. Like any game, there are little cheats and codes. <b>Durango's explanation of how MEEP works isn't <a title="A Thousand Pieces of You by Claudia Gray" href="http://www.bookwyrmingthoughts.com/audiobook-review-a-thousand-pieces-of-you-by-claudia-gray"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">written in a complicated and really scientific way</a></b> helpful for all of us who haven't actually taken physics (or ever will/did).
I am, however, still confused. <b>What is the Black, and what is levelling? I have an idea, but I think I want an official definition of what the Black is, and what levelling is.</b> Especially on levelling, because <b>if I formulate my own definition, I'm pretty sure I'll butcher it</b> and Durango will facepalm.
<b>Her writing is also quite entertaining</b> it's fun, but it has puns in there that are sometimes so bad (read: common), it's good. There's <b>not really a dull moment</b> in <i>The Leveller</i>. It's not completely action, action, action, but I just like Durango's writing (then again, <a title="Released by Megan Duncan" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-released-by-megan-duncan/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">nonstop action can totally backfire</a> unless you have breathers. You'll have to be like <a title="Killer of Enemies by Joseph Bruchac" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-killer-of-enemies-by-joseph-bruchac/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joseph Bruchac</a>.).
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/07/giphy28129.gif"; border="0" /></div>
<b>But the names. I'm quite horrified.</b> It might be as bad as making <a title="Princess of Thorns by Stacey Jay" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-princess-of-thorns-by-stacey-jay/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">a sad effort of being creative by drawing out letters</a> (except that one you could literally tell it was a sad effort).
<b>What kind of name is MEEP?</b> MeaParadisus isn't exactly complicated (though it's a mouthful), but <b>while MEEP sounds all adorable, it just... doesn't sound like something you would name a virtual reality gaming world unless there's a really cute world. I'm expecting chibi people now.</b>
<b>Nixy. Why Nixy?</b> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1251670967?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1"; target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Contrary to what Ella thinks (she thinks it's lizard-like)</a>, <b>Nixy sounds like Trixie.</b> What does Trixie sound like? A cute dog name that does cute tricks. Oh, and that dog had better be oozing in cuteness.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/07/giphy.gif"; width="320" height="179" border="0" /></div>
There are <b>so many nicknames used here by Durango I swear I need a notebook to keep track of who's who at this rate.</b> I mean, there's Nixy, Moose, Chang, Mama Beti, etc. Since <i>The Leveller</i> is the first in a series, <b>there are bound to be more nicknames in the future</b> as Durango introduces us to more characters. I'll have to <b>keep track what's not a nickname, what's a nickname and who it belongs to, blah blah blah.</b>
<b>The ending was a bit of a downfall.</b> It wouldn't be a downfall if I didn't read this in one day, but <b>Durango throws in hints early on in the book that she uses in the end.</b> Everything was going pretty well, but how the story plays out in the very end is <b>predictable if you pay an ounce of attention.</b> How the second book will play out, on the other hand, isn't too predictable yet. <i>The Leveller</i> ends on a solid note, so I'm looking forward to what Durango actually comes up with in the sequel.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-leveller-by-julia-durango/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
In a virtual reality gaming world called MEEP, Nixy Bauer helps parents get their wayward kids back from spending too much time in the MEEP quickly and efficiently. Soon enough, she gets a job from the developer and founder of MEEP himself, whose only son has disappeared in the gaming world for several days, leaving behind a suicide note and world filled with horrifying challenges.
I will fully admit <b>I'm a huge fan of technology and cool gadgets</b>, and I honestly loved the technology <i>The Leveller</i> uses. It's <b>quite similar to <i><a title="Grid Seekers by Logan Byrne" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/2015/07/dnf-review-grid-seekers-by-logan-byrne/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Grid Seekers</a></i> but in a gaming direction rather than an everyday-use direction.</b> Durango explains MEEP simply and straightforward: it's a virtual reality where players can create their own worlds with their minds. Like any game, there are little cheats and codes. <b>Durango's explanation of how MEEP works isn't <a title="A Thousand Pieces of You by Claudia Gray" href="http://www.bookwyrmingthoughts.com/audiobook-review-a-thousand-pieces-of-you-by-claudia-gray"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">written in a complicated and really scientific way</a></b> helpful for all of us who haven't actually taken physics (or ever will/did).
I am, however, still confused. <b>What is the Black, and what is levelling? I have an idea, but I think I want an official definition of what the Black is, and what levelling is.</b> Especially on levelling, because <b>if I formulate my own definition, I'm pretty sure I'll butcher it</b> and Durango will facepalm.
<b>Her writing is also quite entertaining</b> it's fun, but it has puns in there that are sometimes so bad (read: common), it's good. There's <b>not really a dull moment</b> in <i>The Leveller</i>. It's not completely action, action, action, but I just like Durango's writing (then again, <a title="Released by Megan Duncan" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-released-by-megan-duncan/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">nonstop action can totally backfire</a> unless you have breathers. You'll have to be like <a title="Killer of Enemies by Joseph Bruchac" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-killer-of-enemies-by-joseph-bruchac/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joseph Bruchac</a>.).
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/07/giphy28129.gif"; border="0" /></div>
<b>But the names. I'm quite horrified.</b> It might be as bad as making <a title="Princess of Thorns by Stacey Jay" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-princess-of-thorns-by-stacey-jay/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">a sad effort of being creative by drawing out letters</a> (except that one you could literally tell it was a sad effort).
<b>What kind of name is MEEP?</b> MeaParadisus isn't exactly complicated (though it's a mouthful), but <b>while MEEP sounds all adorable, it just... doesn't sound like something you would name a virtual reality gaming world unless there's a really cute world. I'm expecting chibi people now.</b>
<b>Nixy. Why Nixy?</b> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1251670967?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1"; target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Contrary to what Ella thinks (she thinks it's lizard-like)</a>, <b>Nixy sounds like Trixie.</b> What does Trixie sound like? A cute dog name that does cute tricks. Oh, and that dog had better be oozing in cuteness.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/07/giphy.gif"; width="320" height="179" border="0" /></div>
There are <b>so many nicknames used here by Durango I swear I need a notebook to keep track of who's who at this rate.</b> I mean, there's Nixy, Moose, Chang, Mama Beti, etc. Since <i>The Leveller</i> is the first in a series, <b>there are bound to be more nicknames in the future</b> as Durango introduces us to more characters. I'll have to <b>keep track what's not a nickname, what's a nickname and who it belongs to, blah blah blah.</b>
<b>The ending was a bit of a downfall.</b> It wouldn't be a downfall if I didn't read this in one day, but <b>Durango throws in hints early on in the book that she uses in the end.</b> Everything was going pretty well, but how the story plays out in the very end is <b>predictable if you pay an ounce of attention.</b> How the second book will play out, on the other hand, isn't too predictable yet. <i>The Leveller</i> ends on a solid note, so I'm looking forward to what Durango actually comes up with in the sequel.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-leveller-by-julia-durango/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 21 Jump Street (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Back in 1987, the fledgling Fox Network debuted, offering entertainment on Saturday and Sunday evenings aimed at a younger audience. One of the network’s first breakout shows was a police drama with young cops and plenty of action, a show named 21 Jump Street. The show featured a cast of largely unknowns who quickly bolted to overnight notoriety, most notably its star Johnny Depp who, much to his chagrin, became a pinup boy and sex symbol for the show.
The show mixed humor, action, and romance. It followed a team of young officers who were part of a special undercover unit that infiltrated high schools and colleges where they posed as students to solve various campus crimes. Johnny Depp left the show after the fourth season, wanting to be taken seriously as a legitimate actor. The show soon ended one year later. Despite having run only five seasons and having a short-lived spinoff series for star Richard Grieco, “21 Jump Street” remained a pop-culture hit 25 years later.
As such, I had a lot of skepticism when I first heard that Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum would be bringing an updated, raunchier version to the big screen that was heavy on laughs and would definitely aim for an R-rated. This theatrical version stars Hill as Officer Schmidt and Tatum as Officer Jenko, two young officers who met while in high school and, despite being on opposite ends of the social spectrum, bonded and became close friends during their time at the police academy years after graduation. When the duo find their lives as bike cops not as exciting as they had hoped and after they bungle their first chance at a significant arrest, the duo find themselves reassigned to the revived Jump Street project.
Schmidt, in spite of his misgivings, decides to face his fear of the horror that was high school decides to give it another chance. Jenko is soon horrified to see that the social structure that he dominated back in his day has clearly turned upside down. Jocks are no longer the big men on campus, replaced by sensitive New Age types. Nerds that he preyed upon are now the cool kids in school.
After the death of a student who took a new designer drug he bought at school, Schmidt and Jenko are assigned to find the dealers, infiltrate the gang and get to the bottom of the drug distribution ring and stop it at all costs. This proves to be easier said than done, especially for Schmidt. He begins to really relish his new found popularity in school and he starts to live the high school experience that he only dreamed about back in his day. Further complicating matters is Molly (Brie Larson), an attractive high school senior who quickly catches Schmidt’s attention and becomes a focal point of his day-to-day activities.
Jenko, on the other hand, finds himself struggling as the former high school kingpin now finds himself a social outcast, spending much of his time with the chemistry nerds trying to find a way to work the social structure to get to the bottom of the school’s drug trade.
Now what would be a simple assignment for two seasoned cops becomes completely unhinged for the to raw recruits who become more obsessed with social status than their mission and take extreme measures to ingratiate themselves with their new classmates. This all comes at a cost as their bond becomes strained due to Schmidt’s rapidly ascending social status and their continued inability to crack the case.
Now this is a premise that has been done countless times in numerous cop films. “21 Jump Street” has a bold and fresh formula that deftly mixes elements of the gross-out teen comedy with an action-adventure film. While the film drags a bit in the middle, there are some incredibly funny jokes throughout the film. The action in the film is solid and fits well with the story rather than trying to spice things up with random explosions.
I loved how the film, based on a story co-written by Jonah Hill, and produced by both Hill and Tatum, took a fresh approach to the subject matter but also respectfully made fun of the source material, banking on nostalgia while updating it for a younger audience.
I can easily say this was probably Jonah Hill’s best comedy to date as they were numerous laugh out loud moments in the film and he and Tatum make a fantastic duo, playing extremely well off one another. There are also several cameos in the film and strong supporting work from Ice Cube, who plays the extremely agitated captain of the inept cops placed under his command. The film sets up very well for a sequel and I understand that there’s already preparation underway should this one do well at the box office.
“21 Jump Street” is easily the funniest movie I’ve seen this year. I have not laughed this much, for all the right reasons, in quite a long time. Hip and fresh again, there’s plenty of bounce left in “21 Jump Street.”
The show mixed humor, action, and romance. It followed a team of young officers who were part of a special undercover unit that infiltrated high schools and colleges where they posed as students to solve various campus crimes. Johnny Depp left the show after the fourth season, wanting to be taken seriously as a legitimate actor. The show soon ended one year later. Despite having run only five seasons and having a short-lived spinoff series for star Richard Grieco, “21 Jump Street” remained a pop-culture hit 25 years later.
As such, I had a lot of skepticism when I first heard that Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum would be bringing an updated, raunchier version to the big screen that was heavy on laughs and would definitely aim for an R-rated. This theatrical version stars Hill as Officer Schmidt and Tatum as Officer Jenko, two young officers who met while in high school and, despite being on opposite ends of the social spectrum, bonded and became close friends during their time at the police academy years after graduation. When the duo find their lives as bike cops not as exciting as they had hoped and after they bungle their first chance at a significant arrest, the duo find themselves reassigned to the revived Jump Street project.
Schmidt, in spite of his misgivings, decides to face his fear of the horror that was high school decides to give it another chance. Jenko is soon horrified to see that the social structure that he dominated back in his day has clearly turned upside down. Jocks are no longer the big men on campus, replaced by sensitive New Age types. Nerds that he preyed upon are now the cool kids in school.
After the death of a student who took a new designer drug he bought at school, Schmidt and Jenko are assigned to find the dealers, infiltrate the gang and get to the bottom of the drug distribution ring and stop it at all costs. This proves to be easier said than done, especially for Schmidt. He begins to really relish his new found popularity in school and he starts to live the high school experience that he only dreamed about back in his day. Further complicating matters is Molly (Brie Larson), an attractive high school senior who quickly catches Schmidt’s attention and becomes a focal point of his day-to-day activities.
Jenko, on the other hand, finds himself struggling as the former high school kingpin now finds himself a social outcast, spending much of his time with the chemistry nerds trying to find a way to work the social structure to get to the bottom of the school’s drug trade.
Now what would be a simple assignment for two seasoned cops becomes completely unhinged for the to raw recruits who become more obsessed with social status than their mission and take extreme measures to ingratiate themselves with their new classmates. This all comes at a cost as their bond becomes strained due to Schmidt’s rapidly ascending social status and their continued inability to crack the case.
Now this is a premise that has been done countless times in numerous cop films. “21 Jump Street” has a bold and fresh formula that deftly mixes elements of the gross-out teen comedy with an action-adventure film. While the film drags a bit in the middle, there are some incredibly funny jokes throughout the film. The action in the film is solid and fits well with the story rather than trying to spice things up with random explosions.
I loved how the film, based on a story co-written by Jonah Hill, and produced by both Hill and Tatum, took a fresh approach to the subject matter but also respectfully made fun of the source material, banking on nostalgia while updating it for a younger audience.
I can easily say this was probably Jonah Hill’s best comedy to date as they were numerous laugh out loud moments in the film and he and Tatum make a fantastic duo, playing extremely well off one another. There are also several cameos in the film and strong supporting work from Ice Cube, who plays the extremely agitated captain of the inept cops placed under his command. The film sets up very well for a sequel and I understand that there’s already preparation underway should this one do well at the box office.
“21 Jump Street” is easily the funniest movie I’ve seen this year. I have not laughed this much, for all the right reasons, in quite a long time. Hip and fresh again, there’s plenty of bounce left in “21 Jump Street.”
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020
Introduce a horror icon (3 more)
Robert Englund
Freddy
Wes Craven
Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street- is one of my all time favorite horror films. Its also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That being said, the ending sucks and i will get to that, but first lets talk more about the film.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 11, 2021
The two Emmas (2 more)
The rest of the ensemble cast
The technical team: cinematography, hair & make-up; costuming
An astonishing attack on the senses as Disney goes to the dark side.
Positives:
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
First off I want to address the elephant in the room, or more accurately, the serial killer in the room. Kudos to Cineworld for always engaging in dressing up banter for their movies, but honestly, I don't need to be tormented by them during the movie too. We're all familiar with the hovering member of staff who checks the screens during the performance. When the titles started to role on Halloween I was aware of the lurking figure, unlike other times though when I glanced out of the corner of my eye I wasn't greeted with the friendly face of an employee but rather the mask-clad face of a serial killer. At least he wasn't creeping up on me otherwise I would have unleashed the power of my flying handbag... you try and scare people there WILL be consequences! Saying that I would love them to re-release Scream so I could dress up as Ghostface and just tilt my head at people.
Anyway, to the film!
Having just seen the original I found it very easy to draw parallels between the two. The links were everywhere and it made for a nice familiar touch, which I found surprising as it isn't a film that I'm really that well versed in.
The opening credits were obviously a highlight and it was fun to watch the scene unfold, literally. Having not seen many of the other Halloween offerings I don't know how they dealt with Michael and Laurie's connection, not that it really matters I suppose as they tossed out the rest of the timeline out of the window for this one.
Comparing the two films you can really see how they've given Laurie some of Michael's traits. He's so much a part of her that she's even taken to lurking like him outside the school watching her granddaughter. She progresses through the film much like he did in the first, with little flashes of him in her actions like when we see her exit a restaurant and stand at the end of the path like he did after murdering his sister.
We see the escape from the transfer but we don't really know how it happened, although I had my suspicions. Yet again we see a mirror of events from the first film. The patients are roaming around and Michael attacks without mercy to get what he wants/needs.
I'll take a quick diversion here to talk about one of my dislikes about the film. The journalists doing the interviews with Michael and Laurie. I understand why they were there. Michael needed to get his identity back and some groundwork needed to be laid so that the audience could see what Laurie had been working to her whole life... but... I didn't find either character to be particularly effective and the small monologues for the tape seemed poorly executed. Yes, yes, they're just making audio notes for the final piece, but as a film they're supposed to be crafting the scene in a way that flows, and they really don't. Of course as I said, they need to be there so that Michael can get his face back so *shrug* their fate wasn't such a sad one for the story line.
I think what makes Michael so effective as the bad guy is that he's just so brazen. He's got one objective and his single mindedness means that he never stops. It doesn't matter that he's wearing his hospital clothing, he has to do something and that confidence makes him invisible to almost everyone until it's too late. Seeing him in the background of shots brings on the anticipation of what's to come. When it's dark you're squinting at an area that seems unusually framed waiting to see that face emerge from the gloom. It works incredibly well and brings almost a glee to the watcher. You know something that the characters don't... you could survive this thing.
Movies these days seem to be finding some very talented kids and the writers are furnishing them with excellent lines. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian, the ill-fated babysitting job of Haddonfield, brings the comedy in what is otherwise the bleak slasher-fest you'd expect. He's got the witty banter, the attitude, and he delivers perfectly. Watch out for my favourite piece of the movie where Vicky his babysitter attempts to go and investigate for a possible intruder. Julian knows where horror films are at, and he knows who's expendable, good job kid.
As a sequel I think it works really well. Trying to erase the knowledge that there were films in between was challenging though. It's an 18 certificate though and the more I watch them these days the more I wonder exactly how TV and film has jaded my perception of things. Sure, there's a lot of murdering! But none of it seemed particularly graphic or violent to me. Like I say... perhaps I've just become accustomed to it.
What you should do
If you enjoy horror films then I think this one would appeal. Especially if you see the original before you go. I'm sure it would work as a standalone film with only basic knowledge of the first, but there's no denying how well they'll work together in a double bill.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
As with the original, I would still like some of Laurie Strode's luck at surviving against the odds.
Anyway, to the film!
Having just seen the original I found it very easy to draw parallels between the two. The links were everywhere and it made for a nice familiar touch, which I found surprising as it isn't a film that I'm really that well versed in.
The opening credits were obviously a highlight and it was fun to watch the scene unfold, literally. Having not seen many of the other Halloween offerings I don't know how they dealt with Michael and Laurie's connection, not that it really matters I suppose as they tossed out the rest of the timeline out of the window for this one.
Comparing the two films you can really see how they've given Laurie some of Michael's traits. He's so much a part of her that she's even taken to lurking like him outside the school watching her granddaughter. She progresses through the film much like he did in the first, with little flashes of him in her actions like when we see her exit a restaurant and stand at the end of the path like he did after murdering his sister.
We see the escape from the transfer but we don't really know how it happened, although I had my suspicions. Yet again we see a mirror of events from the first film. The patients are roaming around and Michael attacks without mercy to get what he wants/needs.
I'll take a quick diversion here to talk about one of my dislikes about the film. The journalists doing the interviews with Michael and Laurie. I understand why they were there. Michael needed to get his identity back and some groundwork needed to be laid so that the audience could see what Laurie had been working to her whole life... but... I didn't find either character to be particularly effective and the small monologues for the tape seemed poorly executed. Yes, yes, they're just making audio notes for the final piece, but as a film they're supposed to be crafting the scene in a way that flows, and they really don't. Of course as I said, they need to be there so that Michael can get his face back so *shrug* their fate wasn't such a sad one for the story line.
I think what makes Michael so effective as the bad guy is that he's just so brazen. He's got one objective and his single mindedness means that he never stops. It doesn't matter that he's wearing his hospital clothing, he has to do something and that confidence makes him invisible to almost everyone until it's too late. Seeing him in the background of shots brings on the anticipation of what's to come. When it's dark you're squinting at an area that seems unusually framed waiting to see that face emerge from the gloom. It works incredibly well and brings almost a glee to the watcher. You know something that the characters don't... you could survive this thing.
Movies these days seem to be finding some very talented kids and the writers are furnishing them with excellent lines. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian, the ill-fated babysitting job of Haddonfield, brings the comedy in what is otherwise the bleak slasher-fest you'd expect. He's got the witty banter, the attitude, and he delivers perfectly. Watch out for my favourite piece of the movie where Vicky his babysitter attempts to go and investigate for a possible intruder. Julian knows where horror films are at, and he knows who's expendable, good job kid.
As a sequel I think it works really well. Trying to erase the knowledge that there were films in between was challenging though. It's an 18 certificate though and the more I watch them these days the more I wonder exactly how TV and film has jaded my perception of things. Sure, there's a lot of murdering! But none of it seemed particularly graphic or violent to me. Like I say... perhaps I've just become accustomed to it.
What you should do
If you enjoy horror films then I think this one would appeal. Especially if you see the original before you go. I'm sure it would work as a standalone film with only basic knowledge of the first, but there's no denying how well they'll work together in a double bill.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
As with the original, I would still like some of Laurie Strode's luck at surviving against the odds.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 22, 2019
Verdict: Franchise Hasn’t Fallen
Story: Angel Has Fallen starts when Mike banning (Butler) is the only survivor of a drone attack on President Allan Trumbull (Freeman), the rest of the team are killed and Mike has been framed for the assassination attempt. FBI agent Helen Thompson (Smith) is investigating the case, with Mike looking cut and dry to have been the man behind it, but when Mike escapes, he sets out to prove his innocence.
Mike turns to his estranged father Clay (Nolte) as he looks to discover why his old friend an private contractor Wade Jennings (Huston) has set him up and how he can prove his isn’t involved despite a nationwide manhunt for him.
Thoughts on Angel Has Fallen
Characters – Mike Banning is still a senior secret service man, playing righthand to the President, he has been keeping his injuries secret, which is nice to see an action man actually suffering injuries, instead of just being fine, like most action stars. He does his duty saving the President from an attack, only to find himself framed. When the people come to finish the job on Banning, he escapes and uses all his training to allude and search for a way to prove his innocence. Allan Trumbull is now the President, stepping up from his role as the Vice in the previous two outings, he is looking to change certain ideas, though he spends most of his film in a coma after the attack, he is the only other witness who could defend Mike’s involvement too. Wade Jennings is the private military contractor and old military buddy of Mike’s, he has framed him and is using his expertly trained team to hunt him down and finish off the job. Leah is the wife of Mike’s she is trying to keep him from working now they have a child and must deal with the consequences of seeing the name dragged through the dirt. FBI Agent Helen Thompson is trying to put the pieces together, seeing Mike as the prime suspect, she just wants the case closed without anybody else being hurt. Clay Banning is the estranged father of Mike’s he has been off the grid for years because of his own trauma from his time in the war, he is the only person Mike knows he can turn too.
Performances – Gerard Butler is great in the leading role, he is always going to be a bankable star when it comes to action roles and this is no different. Morgan Freeman does everything you would expect from a President role, without needing to do much. Piper Perabo takes over from Radha Mitchell in the wife role, which doesn’t have much to do if we are being honest. Danny Huston is one of these actors that you know is always going to be a villain, he does everything we know he can do in this role. Nick Nolte is a lot of fun, bringing his trademark estranged father role to the big screen once again, he gets a few laughs in too.
Story – The story here sees Mike Banning being framed for the assassination attempt of the President, the figure that he has been guarding for years and he must go off the grid to prove who was really behind it. The story is one that is great to watch for action, but if you have seen the previous instalments of the franchise, you will be left asking a few questions. First what happened to President Benjamin Asher, we have zero mention of him, secondly, how is nobody on Mike’s side after all he has done in the past, like seriously, he pretty much saved the President against impossible odds twice. While this question could be answered with the number of pieces of evidence placed on him, it still doesn’t seem to fit the character these people have created. Away from these questions, we must say this does build on the scale of the previous film’s stories, which is good because it does feel different, which each film does do. We could easily watch this story as a single film too and the fact that we do touch on the physical injuries that Mike has suffered through his job, does show a vulnerable action character.
Action – The action is big, we might not have the large scale opening attack, but once we get into the military formations ideas, we get plenty of tactical shootings.
Settings – The film does build on the settings, with the first one being one building, the second being one city, now we have a nationwide hunt.
Special Effects – The effects, well this has been an issue for the franchise all along, but the green screen scenes are so clear to see it almost feels like they didn’t finish the job yet.
Scene of the Movie – Mike and Clay have an escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No mention of former President Benjamin Asher, like what happened here?
Final Thoughts – This is a action sequel that does enough different to make it feel fresh even if certain parts of the story feels too farfetched, it does continue to have a 24 vibe to everything, but it is well for a watch if you have seen the franchise or not.
Overall: Trilogy that hasn’t Fallen.
Story: Angel Has Fallen starts when Mike banning (Butler) is the only survivor of a drone attack on President Allan Trumbull (Freeman), the rest of the team are killed and Mike has been framed for the assassination attempt. FBI agent Helen Thompson (Smith) is investigating the case, with Mike looking cut and dry to have been the man behind it, but when Mike escapes, he sets out to prove his innocence.
Mike turns to his estranged father Clay (Nolte) as he looks to discover why his old friend an private contractor Wade Jennings (Huston) has set him up and how he can prove his isn’t involved despite a nationwide manhunt for him.
Thoughts on Angel Has Fallen
Characters – Mike Banning is still a senior secret service man, playing righthand to the President, he has been keeping his injuries secret, which is nice to see an action man actually suffering injuries, instead of just being fine, like most action stars. He does his duty saving the President from an attack, only to find himself framed. When the people come to finish the job on Banning, he escapes and uses all his training to allude and search for a way to prove his innocence. Allan Trumbull is now the President, stepping up from his role as the Vice in the previous two outings, he is looking to change certain ideas, though he spends most of his film in a coma after the attack, he is the only other witness who could defend Mike’s involvement too. Wade Jennings is the private military contractor and old military buddy of Mike’s, he has framed him and is using his expertly trained team to hunt him down and finish off the job. Leah is the wife of Mike’s she is trying to keep him from working now they have a child and must deal with the consequences of seeing the name dragged through the dirt. FBI Agent Helen Thompson is trying to put the pieces together, seeing Mike as the prime suspect, she just wants the case closed without anybody else being hurt. Clay Banning is the estranged father of Mike’s he has been off the grid for years because of his own trauma from his time in the war, he is the only person Mike knows he can turn too.
Performances – Gerard Butler is great in the leading role, he is always going to be a bankable star when it comes to action roles and this is no different. Morgan Freeman does everything you would expect from a President role, without needing to do much. Piper Perabo takes over from Radha Mitchell in the wife role, which doesn’t have much to do if we are being honest. Danny Huston is one of these actors that you know is always going to be a villain, he does everything we know he can do in this role. Nick Nolte is a lot of fun, bringing his trademark estranged father role to the big screen once again, he gets a few laughs in too.
Story – The story here sees Mike Banning being framed for the assassination attempt of the President, the figure that he has been guarding for years and he must go off the grid to prove who was really behind it. The story is one that is great to watch for action, but if you have seen the previous instalments of the franchise, you will be left asking a few questions. First what happened to President Benjamin Asher, we have zero mention of him, secondly, how is nobody on Mike’s side after all he has done in the past, like seriously, he pretty much saved the President against impossible odds twice. While this question could be answered with the number of pieces of evidence placed on him, it still doesn’t seem to fit the character these people have created. Away from these questions, we must say this does build on the scale of the previous film’s stories, which is good because it does feel different, which each film does do. We could easily watch this story as a single film too and the fact that we do touch on the physical injuries that Mike has suffered through his job, does show a vulnerable action character.
Action – The action is big, we might not have the large scale opening attack, but once we get into the military formations ideas, we get plenty of tactical shootings.
Settings – The film does build on the settings, with the first one being one building, the second being one city, now we have a nationwide hunt.
Special Effects – The effects, well this has been an issue for the franchise all along, but the green screen scenes are so clear to see it almost feels like they didn’t finish the job yet.
Scene of the Movie – Mike and Clay have an escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No mention of former President Benjamin Asher, like what happened here?
Final Thoughts – This is a action sequel that does enough different to make it feel fresh even if certain parts of the story feels too farfetched, it does continue to have a 24 vibe to everything, but it is well for a watch if you have seen the franchise or not.
Overall: Trilogy that hasn’t Fallen.