Search
Search results
The Lost City
Games and Entertainment
App
**** The Lost City achieved the #1 paid app position in the UK, Japan, Canada, France, Australia,...
Beats Solo3 Wireless On-Ear Headphones - Neighborhood Collection
7.5
Rate It
Tech Watch
Live in color with the city-inspired Beats Neighborhood Collection, styled for the ones out there...
Beats Solo3 Wireless On-Ear Headphones
7.6
Rate It
Tech
With up to 40 hours of battery life, Beats Solo3 Wireless is your perfect everyday headphone. With...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Shadow in the Cloud (2020) in Movies
Sep 7, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
In short, Shadow in the Cloud is a whole load of silly, but entertaining nonsense. In all honesty, the opening 30 or so minutes completely grabbed me - it has a foreboding synth heavy soundtrack that's completely at odds with its WWII time period but still works, it has a sort of gothic aesthetic in it's cloudy night sky setting that boasts some wonderful shots, it has a well built up sense of dread, and then, when the penny drops that there's something not quite right, there's a shot that is legitimately chilling. I was hooked and found myself thinking "this is going to be one of my new favourite films", but alas, it wasn't to last.
From the moment the gremlin creature is fully revealed, proceedings get sillier and sillier - there is one bit in particular that is so mind numbingly dumb, I felt some brain cells die off (but it still made me audibly laugh so, every cloud). The silliness isn't even the main problem, it's actually a plus, but it does highlight how shoddy most of the writing is. Chloë Grace Moretz does the best with what she's given, but honestly, Max Landis' claims that 95% of the finished product is still his work despite re-writes isn't something to be proud of. There's just a lot of iffy dialogue, and some narrative twists later down the line that feel forced and unnecessary.
However, all the silliness that I mentioned makes up for it, if that's your kind of thing. I really can't hate on a film too much when it has its lead beating the shit out of a CGI monkey-bat thing that's trying to eat her baby after all.
From the moment the gremlin creature is fully revealed, proceedings get sillier and sillier - there is one bit in particular that is so mind numbingly dumb, I felt some brain cells die off (but it still made me audibly laugh so, every cloud). The silliness isn't even the main problem, it's actually a plus, but it does highlight how shoddy most of the writing is. Chloë Grace Moretz does the best with what she's given, but honestly, Max Landis' claims that 95% of the finished product is still his work despite re-writes isn't something to be proud of. There's just a lot of iffy dialogue, and some narrative twists later down the line that feel forced and unnecessary.
However, all the silliness that I mentioned makes up for it, if that's your kind of thing. I really can't hate on a film too much when it has its lead beating the shit out of a CGI monkey-bat thing that's trying to eat her baby after all.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Wowee! From the ridiculous to the sublime. This is how to make a Star Trek movie! If you were trying to bring back the action and fun of the original TV series, then what better than to bring back one of the original villains in a sequel to that story? And being able to cast the original actor (Ricardo Montalban) is just perfect.
Nicholas Meyer also clearly had the same frustrations about that first movie. The film barely pauses for breath. Interestingly, it clearly reuses footage from the original movie in travelling to the Enterprise in space dock, but cuts that 6 minute special-effects-porn-fest to about 20 seconds! It’s a striking comparison!
The movie “introduces” Kirstie (“Cheers”) Alley as Vulcan officer Saavik (although she was in a student-made feature the year before). She makes quite an impression. Also new to the series is Merritt Buttrick, playing Kirk’s son David. Sadly, like Khambatta from the last film, his Trek-voyage was to be short lived. Although he appeared in Star Trek III, he died of Aids just three years later.
The movie is also notable for launching the late James Horner onto the world stage as a leading film composer. Horner cleverly associates the “ship” in starship with a roistering seafaring motif that would be equally at home in a Hornblower movie as it is here. I remember leaving the cinema when this was released and heading STRAIGHT into HMV to buy the vinyl soundtrack!
There are very few things I can find to critique in this movie. It all holds up pretty well, even after nearly 40 years (MAN, I FEEL OLD NOW!) The only scene that perhaps grates with modern sensitivities is in the (supposedly comic) “lady driver” reactions from Kirk.
Nicholas Meyer also clearly had the same frustrations about that first movie. The film barely pauses for breath. Interestingly, it clearly reuses footage from the original movie in travelling to the Enterprise in space dock, but cuts that 6 minute special-effects-porn-fest to about 20 seconds! It’s a striking comparison!
The movie “introduces” Kirstie (“Cheers”) Alley as Vulcan officer Saavik (although she was in a student-made feature the year before). She makes quite an impression. Also new to the series is Merritt Buttrick, playing Kirk’s son David. Sadly, like Khambatta from the last film, his Trek-voyage was to be short lived. Although he appeared in Star Trek III, he died of Aids just three years later.
The movie is also notable for launching the late James Horner onto the world stage as a leading film composer. Horner cleverly associates the “ship” in starship with a roistering seafaring motif that would be equally at home in a Hornblower movie as it is here. I remember leaving the cinema when this was released and heading STRAIGHT into HMV to buy the vinyl soundtrack!
There are very few things I can find to critique in this movie. It all holds up pretty well, even after nearly 40 years (MAN, I FEEL OLD NOW!) The only scene that perhaps grates with modern sensitivities is in the (supposedly comic) “lady driver” reactions from Kirk.
Time For Tea by 11 Acorn Lane
8.0
Rate It
Album
Thomas Feurer and Neal Pawley, who are 11 Acorn Lane, create "accomplished musical whimsy" (LA...
Zoosk (5 KP) rated Stone Roses by The Stone Roses in Music
Dec 5, 2024
A Timeless Masterpiece
Every so often, an album comes along that feels like it was born out of pure magic, and The Stone Roses is one of those rare gems. From the opening notes of “I Wanna Be Adored” to the euphoric closer “I Am the Resurrection,” this debut album is a flawless journey through shimmering guitars, hypnotic rhythms, and an aura of defiance and mysticism.
What sets this album apart is its ability to transcend genres. It’s a perfect blend of jangly indie rock, psychedelic flourishes, and danceable grooves, creating a sound that feels fresh even decades later. John Squire’s guitar work is nothing short of genius—each riff and solo feels meticulously crafted yet completely effortless. Ian Brown’s vocal delivery, while unconventional, perfectly captures the swagger and yearning that permeates every track.
Tracks like “She Bangs the Drums” and “Made of Stone” are anthems of pure joy, brimming with melodies that seem to be pulled straight from the heavens. “Waterfall” is a blissful, sun-drenched escape, while “I Am the Resurrection” is a sprawling epic that perfectly captures the band’s rebellious energy. Every song feels essential; there’s no filler here.
Listening to this album feels like stepping into another world, one where everything is drenched in sunlight and possibility. It’s no wonder it became the defining soundtrack of the late ‘80s Madchester scene, but its influence stretches far beyond that. Bands like Oasis and Arctic Monkeys owe much of their sound and success to this record.
For me, The Stone Roses isn’t just an album—it’s an experience. It’s bold, timeless, and utterly captivating. I can’t think of a single way it could be improved, and for that reason, it’s a perfect 10/10.
What sets this album apart is its ability to transcend genres. It’s a perfect blend of jangly indie rock, psychedelic flourishes, and danceable grooves, creating a sound that feels fresh even decades later. John Squire’s guitar work is nothing short of genius—each riff and solo feels meticulously crafted yet completely effortless. Ian Brown’s vocal delivery, while unconventional, perfectly captures the swagger and yearning that permeates every track.
Tracks like “She Bangs the Drums” and “Made of Stone” are anthems of pure joy, brimming with melodies that seem to be pulled straight from the heavens. “Waterfall” is a blissful, sun-drenched escape, while “I Am the Resurrection” is a sprawling epic that perfectly captures the band’s rebellious energy. Every song feels essential; there’s no filler here.
Listening to this album feels like stepping into another world, one where everything is drenched in sunlight and possibility. It’s no wonder it became the defining soundtrack of the late ‘80s Madchester scene, but its influence stretches far beyond that. Bands like Oasis and Arctic Monkeys owe much of their sound and success to this record.
For me, The Stone Roses isn’t just an album—it’s an experience. It’s bold, timeless, and utterly captivating. I can’t think of a single way it could be improved, and for that reason, it’s a perfect 10/10.