Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Turning (2020) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
On reflection, I'm going to have to apologise to Like A Boss for saying it was the worst film I saw in January.
Another adaptation of another classic novel... I'll get this broken record fixed at some point, I promise. Though not until after Dolittle, oh and The Invisible Man, oh and The True History Of The Kelly Gang... you know what? Never mind!
Kate is looking for a different challenge and so she quits her teaching job to become governess to a young girl living on her uncle's estate with his housekeeper after her parent's tragic death. Life in the house is strange even before her brother arrives home suddenly from boarding school. There's something untoward going on but everything defies logic. Can she get out without it slowly eating away at her sanity?
But Emma, this is a horror and you don't like going to horrors at the cinema! No, you're right, but I'm still trying to be brave... but my god do I wish I'd picked a better film.
The first thing I would query is the time jump this film makes from its source material. I can understand wanting to modernise something to get a new audience, I really can, but its setting in 1994 didn't make a lot of sense and at the same time wasn't very noticeable. Within the house and grounds you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a period thriller because there was little to remind you it wasn't. Why not just go the whole hog and set it in the present day? The house could still have been off the grid, it would have allowed for extra backstory being inserted by her researching (I suspect the inclusion of Kate's friend was to allow for extra story details) and then in the climax of the film she could have been cut off from her access to the outside world. There's nothing quite like making an audience fear the technology they hold dear like that.
1 hour and 34 minutes, that was the entire runtime. Normally that's something to be applauded, but in this instance it was an agonising 94 minutes of programming. There was nothing in the film that gripped me, mild intrigue at times, but there was nothing to sustain that interest through any major sections of the film. Jump scares seemed to be the way it wanted to go but even I, the scardiest scaredy cat there ever was, could see them coming, meaning they made no impact.
Both Mackenzie Davis and Finn Wolfhard are good actors but there was no chemistry on screen. I felt no genuine tension between the two at all even though Miles was the certainly playing the creeper card a lot.
If you're talking about The Turning then you have to address the style of ending. A film that leaves you able to interpret what you want from certain events is something to be treasured and is a stroke of genius when done correctly. It's a great marketing tool because your audience are still thinking about the film and discussing it with people long after they've seen it. But for that discussion to be positive you need to have a film that hooks you in and The Turning just didn't do that for me.
Sometimes suspense works better as the written word.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-turning-movie-review.html
Another adaptation of another classic novel... I'll get this broken record fixed at some point, I promise. Though not until after Dolittle, oh and The Invisible Man, oh and The True History Of The Kelly Gang... you know what? Never mind!
Kate is looking for a different challenge and so she quits her teaching job to become governess to a young girl living on her uncle's estate with his housekeeper after her parent's tragic death. Life in the house is strange even before her brother arrives home suddenly from boarding school. There's something untoward going on but everything defies logic. Can she get out without it slowly eating away at her sanity?
But Emma, this is a horror and you don't like going to horrors at the cinema! No, you're right, but I'm still trying to be brave... but my god do I wish I'd picked a better film.
The first thing I would query is the time jump this film makes from its source material. I can understand wanting to modernise something to get a new audience, I really can, but its setting in 1994 didn't make a lot of sense and at the same time wasn't very noticeable. Within the house and grounds you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a period thriller because there was little to remind you it wasn't. Why not just go the whole hog and set it in the present day? The house could still have been off the grid, it would have allowed for extra backstory being inserted by her researching (I suspect the inclusion of Kate's friend was to allow for extra story details) and then in the climax of the film she could have been cut off from her access to the outside world. There's nothing quite like making an audience fear the technology they hold dear like that.
1 hour and 34 minutes, that was the entire runtime. Normally that's something to be applauded, but in this instance it was an agonising 94 minutes of programming. There was nothing in the film that gripped me, mild intrigue at times, but there was nothing to sustain that interest through any major sections of the film. Jump scares seemed to be the way it wanted to go but even I, the scardiest scaredy cat there ever was, could see them coming, meaning they made no impact.
Both Mackenzie Davis and Finn Wolfhard are good actors but there was no chemistry on screen. I felt no genuine tension between the two at all even though Miles was the certainly playing the creeper card a lot.
If you're talking about The Turning then you have to address the style of ending. A film that leaves you able to interpret what you want from certain events is something to be treasured and is a stroke of genius when done correctly. It's a great marketing tool because your audience are still thinking about the film and discussing it with people long after they've seen it. But for that discussion to be positive you need to have a film that hooks you in and The Turning just didn't do that for me.
Sometimes suspense works better as the written word.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-turning-movie-review.html
JT (287 KP) rated RoboCop (2014) in Movies
Mar 17, 2020
Reboot taints the original's good name
If you’re going to remake one of the 80s most iconic action films you’ve got to do it with some balls. Sadly José Padilha dropped this particular ball, pretty spectacularly in fact, to give us a sorry remake and leave fans of the original baying for blood (something which was missing in this).
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
It’s a story that was disjointed, rushed and ill-conceived in every possible way, with a leading actor who was miscast and non-believable in the role he was trusted to uphold. Kinnaman is Alex Murphy a Detroit Detective whose ill-fated sting operation ends badly after his cover is blown leaving him high on the villains most wanted list.
In the background is OmniCorp a leading company in robot technology priding itself on making the world a safer place with drones and the all too familiar ED-209 looking to serve and protect. Lead by CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) the initiative has not reached American soil due to Government legislation and a bill that prohibits the use of robots on the streets.
Needing a new way to reach the public, Sellars turns to Murphy as a part-man part machine creation to reach out and grab justice by the throat and give America the hope it longs for, and a hero to put their faith in. The PG-13 rating and lack of graphic violence is stark contrast to the original, while the action scenes might be slick and bolstered with nifty CGI it does little to hide the fact that there isn’t a drop of claret anywhere to be seen.
While not completely adhering to the original it nods in its direction a few times, but only because it has to appease the die-hard fan. Once Robocop is up and about after being resurrected under the watchful eye of Dr Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) he goes on a quick hunt to bring the perpetrators who tried to have him killed to justice.
Unlike Clarence J. Boddicker, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow) is only a bit part villain, hopelessly moving illegal guns around the city he’s duly finished off in one of the film’s more colourful action shoot outs. The film is comical but not in a good way when Murphy demands to see what is behind the suit you almost laugh and then hang your head that Padilha could have included and thought up such a ridiculous scene.
Supporting cast do little to add much either, Samuel L. Jackson waves his arms and shouts a lot like a current affairs news anchor that in some way pays homage to the cut to’s of the Casey Wong era. Abbie Cornish is shockingly bad, and Jackie Earle Haley as much so, all in all, a pity. Only Oldman provides any shinning light in something that was slumping before it had even made it halfway through.
Robocop continues his quest back into the Detroit Police department, where corruption is rife and all trailing back to OmniCorps big cheese in charge, culminating in a finale that does little to finish on a high note. Paul Verhoeven will be able to rest easy at night knowing that his 1987 classic will continue to live long in the memory of true Robocop fans, while its 2014 compatriot should be cast aside into the recycle bin.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight (2020) in Movies
Nov 13, 2020
Condemnable for the dubbing alone
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight is a Polish horror film about a group of technology dependent youths visiting an offline summer camp who are terrorised by a danger lurking in the woods.
The film follows a small group centred around Zosia (Julia Wieniawa), as they head out from the camp on a 3 day trek into the woods and encounter some very unfriendly locals. I’m afraid that from the very start, there’s nothing about this film that is particularly original. Pretty much every classic slasher horror is noticeably referenced here, from Friday the 13th to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and everything in between. It even drifts into sci-fi at one point. Some might say this is a homage to these films, but for me it was just a blatant copy. From the hillbilly bad guys in wooden cabins to the use of a machete, it all just felt so unoriginal. There was nothing at all in this that didn’t remind me of another, much better film. And that’s not even taking into account all of the clichéd horror movie tropes that are thrown in throughout - I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve seen dismembered deer/wildlife and phone batteries that are conveniently dying to name but a few, and Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight can’t seem to avoid these.
Despite this, there are some (very few) positives. The score is surprisingly atmospheric and dramatic, and works so well to build some much needed tension. The practical special effects, at least in the death scenes, are also good and there’s a pretty decent amount of gore. However this is pretty much the only good things I can say about this film. Whilst the death effects might be good, the creature/enemy effects are severely lacking and they look very cheap and second rate. It doesn’t help that their characters are rather silly and have no real purpose other than to kill. And even their murdering appears to be nonsensical and sporadic – for instance in one scene killing a character who’s outside yet completely ignoring those in tents a mere metres away. The youths don’t fare any better when it comes to characterisation either. They are your usual slasher movie group and aside from Zosia none have any real depth or back story, and for the most part they don’t live enough for you to care anyway.
But even considering all of the above, by far the worst crime of this film is the fact that it’s dubbed. Dubbing is one of my personal pet peeves. I cannot abide watching anything where the sound doesn’t sync with actors mouths moving, especially when the dubbing isn’t intended as tongue in cheek. And worse still, Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight features the most cringeworthy dubbing I’ve ever heard, with some very stereotypical American voiceovers that are made worse by the cheesy script that tries to shoehorn in as many geeky pop cultures references that it can find. Within 10 minutes I’d had enough and I do wonder if this film could’ve been much more bearable has it just been subtitled instead.
Dubbing aside, this film is still pretty poor and riddled with so many clichés that you can barely discern any truly original ideas. If you want to watch a horror film like this, you’d be better off watching the classic originals.
The film follows a small group centred around Zosia (Julia Wieniawa), as they head out from the camp on a 3 day trek into the woods and encounter some very unfriendly locals. I’m afraid that from the very start, there’s nothing about this film that is particularly original. Pretty much every classic slasher horror is noticeably referenced here, from Friday the 13th to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and everything in between. It even drifts into sci-fi at one point. Some might say this is a homage to these films, but for me it was just a blatant copy. From the hillbilly bad guys in wooden cabins to the use of a machete, it all just felt so unoriginal. There was nothing at all in this that didn’t remind me of another, much better film. And that’s not even taking into account all of the clichéd horror movie tropes that are thrown in throughout - I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve seen dismembered deer/wildlife and phone batteries that are conveniently dying to name but a few, and Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight can’t seem to avoid these.
Despite this, there are some (very few) positives. The score is surprisingly atmospheric and dramatic, and works so well to build some much needed tension. The practical special effects, at least in the death scenes, are also good and there’s a pretty decent amount of gore. However this is pretty much the only good things I can say about this film. Whilst the death effects might be good, the creature/enemy effects are severely lacking and they look very cheap and second rate. It doesn’t help that their characters are rather silly and have no real purpose other than to kill. And even their murdering appears to be nonsensical and sporadic – for instance in one scene killing a character who’s outside yet completely ignoring those in tents a mere metres away. The youths don’t fare any better when it comes to characterisation either. They are your usual slasher movie group and aside from Zosia none have any real depth or back story, and for the most part they don’t live enough for you to care anyway.
But even considering all of the above, by far the worst crime of this film is the fact that it’s dubbed. Dubbing is one of my personal pet peeves. I cannot abide watching anything where the sound doesn’t sync with actors mouths moving, especially when the dubbing isn’t intended as tongue in cheek. And worse still, Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight features the most cringeworthy dubbing I’ve ever heard, with some very stereotypical American voiceovers that are made worse by the cheesy script that tries to shoehorn in as many geeky pop cultures references that it can find. Within 10 minutes I’d had enough and I do wonder if this film could’ve been much more bearable has it just been subtitled instead.
Dubbing aside, this film is still pretty poor and riddled with so many clichés that you can barely discern any truly original ideas. If you want to watch a horror film like this, you’d be better off watching the classic originals.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bumblebee (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm really torn by this film. I enjoyed it but at the same time it isn't amazing. It's got all the classic formulas in it. Charlie is still trying to make sense of her father's death. Bumblebee is trying to remember who he is. Together they help each other... it really could be one of many films.
Something I'm pleased to discover is that other people were getting Herbie vibes from this. In the notes I was jotting down for my review I put "this would make a pretty good Herbie story". And then I pondered the possibility that Herbie was a Transformer who was broken and stuck in his Beetle shape.
The opening battle on Cyberton is surprisingly natural considering it's made up of CGId robots. It makes for a great opening. But I wasn't wowed. I should have been blown away by the effects and I just wasn't.
Bumblebee as a character was a real joy. After his memory is damaged he's basically back to being a scared little boy and the animation reflects that incredibly well. Everything about him is inquisitive and childlike, and all the little touches are there to really bring him to life. He's very human in the moments before he gets his memory back.
There are so many of his scenes that were genuinely pleasing to watch. Him waving at Charlie as she chases after them. The cassette tapes. The extended toilet paper prank and house demolition scenes. Probably my favourite bit though is where he's sitting in the forest and she's trying to fix him, his fidgeting is adorable.
When it comes to the cast feels like we've got the members of a comedy working on a drama/action film. They work well with what they've got and we get some enjoyable performances but there's nothing that really sticks in the memory.
I still enjoyed Bumblebee but I can't say that I found it to be any better than previous films in the franchise, certainly not on the action and graphics side of things. The soundtrack is full of some classic tunes that are very well placed, and the overall vibe of that combined with everything else is spot on for the 80s. You do forget it's set in 1987 though, which means that little things pop up like the TV and the technology that the military have and you feel like the films has already dated.
This is the first Transformers movie to get a PG rating in the UK, previously they've all been rated 12. It's definitely family friendly... but... it reminds me more and more of Herbie every moment I think about it.
As a last thought... seriously, Charlie? You have your moments. "If we're driving down the street and we see someone you have to hide"... if you're driving down the street he's a car anyway, hiding would make it more obvious that he's not just a car. You draw more attention to Bee than he does. Blindfolding yourself with Memo's shirt (weird moment in the film by the way, creepily out of place) and then standing out the sunroof? That won't make you more noticeable to passersby.
What you should do
It's an enjoyable film and should make for a fun family outing. I don't think there's any particular rush to see it in the cinema though.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Who wouldn't want they're own Transformer who can change into any car it wants AND can dance?!
Something I'm pleased to discover is that other people were getting Herbie vibes from this. In the notes I was jotting down for my review I put "this would make a pretty good Herbie story". And then I pondered the possibility that Herbie was a Transformer who was broken and stuck in his Beetle shape.
The opening battle on Cyberton is surprisingly natural considering it's made up of CGId robots. It makes for a great opening. But I wasn't wowed. I should have been blown away by the effects and I just wasn't.
Bumblebee as a character was a real joy. After his memory is damaged he's basically back to being a scared little boy and the animation reflects that incredibly well. Everything about him is inquisitive and childlike, and all the little touches are there to really bring him to life. He's very human in the moments before he gets his memory back.
There are so many of his scenes that were genuinely pleasing to watch. Him waving at Charlie as she chases after them. The cassette tapes. The extended toilet paper prank and house demolition scenes. Probably my favourite bit though is where he's sitting in the forest and she's trying to fix him, his fidgeting is adorable.
When it comes to the cast feels like we've got the members of a comedy working on a drama/action film. They work well with what they've got and we get some enjoyable performances but there's nothing that really sticks in the memory.
I still enjoyed Bumblebee but I can't say that I found it to be any better than previous films in the franchise, certainly not on the action and graphics side of things. The soundtrack is full of some classic tunes that are very well placed, and the overall vibe of that combined with everything else is spot on for the 80s. You do forget it's set in 1987 though, which means that little things pop up like the TV and the technology that the military have and you feel like the films has already dated.
This is the first Transformers movie to get a PG rating in the UK, previously they've all been rated 12. It's definitely family friendly... but... it reminds me more and more of Herbie every moment I think about it.
As a last thought... seriously, Charlie? You have your moments. "If we're driving down the street and we see someone you have to hide"... if you're driving down the street he's a car anyway, hiding would make it more obvious that he's not just a car. You draw more attention to Bee than he does. Blindfolding yourself with Memo's shirt (weird moment in the film by the way, creepily out of place) and then standing out the sunroof? That won't make you more noticeable to passersby.
What you should do
It's an enjoyable film and should make for a fun family outing. I don't think there's any particular rush to see it in the cinema though.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Who wouldn't want they're own Transformer who can change into any car it wants AND can dance?!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated An American Pickle (2020) in Movies
Aug 22, 2020
I'm not the biggest fan of Seth Rogen, his type of humour doesn't always gel with mine, but I saw a trailer that looked amusing so I figured it was something a little different to try.
Herschel and his wife Sarah get to America with hope and the dream of making the Greenbaum family a successful one. Herschel's plan is scuppered when he falls into a pickle vat at his job and isn't discovered for 100 years. The future is a very different place. Reunited with his great grandson Ben he starts to adjust to the new crazy way of life... with just a few bumps along the way.
So... I didn't hate it. It's a comedy that didn't raise many laughs, in me or the others in the screening. There were things that made me smile but I never broke the silence. It felt like a script problem rather than the acting, Rogen can deliver comedy well even if I don't find it funny.
Rogen's performances throughout were good. I couldn't help but watch for the continuity with his two roles, and apart from the frustrating shots needed to hide doubles it was all well done. He even got me with a bit of emotion which caught me by surprise... but that was something else that worked against the comedy, it felt much more like drama.
I enjoyed the different styles of the old country and modern America, the sets and costumes were well thought out and I really enjoyed the hipster joke about Herschel's clothes. But, I had an issue with the filming choice to separate the two eras. You may know from previous rants that I dislike odd aspect ratios, and ugh, why?! The film starts with "old timey" hand drawn style titles and it's shot in 1:33 (according to IMDb), when we hit modern times it reverts to a full screen size. I don't feel like there would have been anything to recover this for me but it would have been... more satisfying?... if they'd stuck to a theme. Go all out, small ratio, muted colours, grainy footage. They use the old photos a few times later in the film and some proper tie in might have been good. There's also a lot of technology based content to emphasise the differences, and that's perfectly logical but there was a lot of it. News footage popped up everywhere, TVs, computers, devices or the characters actually in it. It felt a little odd and a tad excessive.
Early on I noticed a lot of music, when Herschel meets the real world after being pickled I got a heavy Avengers/Cap vibe which almost instantly changed to something very weird and out of place. Almost as suddenly I stopped noticing the music at all, if it was still there it blended a lot better with the scenes... I'll just have to shrug my shoulders on that one.
Everything about An American Pickle is up and down, an odd but interesting story idea, a lack of laughs for a comedy, some great use of atmosphere to illustrate Ben's mood... but that all comes together (or rather it doesn't) into something that left me feeling a little pickled myself.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-american-pickle-movie-review.html
Herschel and his wife Sarah get to America with hope and the dream of making the Greenbaum family a successful one. Herschel's plan is scuppered when he falls into a pickle vat at his job and isn't discovered for 100 years. The future is a very different place. Reunited with his great grandson Ben he starts to adjust to the new crazy way of life... with just a few bumps along the way.
So... I didn't hate it. It's a comedy that didn't raise many laughs, in me or the others in the screening. There were things that made me smile but I never broke the silence. It felt like a script problem rather than the acting, Rogen can deliver comedy well even if I don't find it funny.
Rogen's performances throughout were good. I couldn't help but watch for the continuity with his two roles, and apart from the frustrating shots needed to hide doubles it was all well done. He even got me with a bit of emotion which caught me by surprise... but that was something else that worked against the comedy, it felt much more like drama.
I enjoyed the different styles of the old country and modern America, the sets and costumes were well thought out and I really enjoyed the hipster joke about Herschel's clothes. But, I had an issue with the filming choice to separate the two eras. You may know from previous rants that I dislike odd aspect ratios, and ugh, why?! The film starts with "old timey" hand drawn style titles and it's shot in 1:33 (according to IMDb), when we hit modern times it reverts to a full screen size. I don't feel like there would have been anything to recover this for me but it would have been... more satisfying?... if they'd stuck to a theme. Go all out, small ratio, muted colours, grainy footage. They use the old photos a few times later in the film and some proper tie in might have been good. There's also a lot of technology based content to emphasise the differences, and that's perfectly logical but there was a lot of it. News footage popped up everywhere, TVs, computers, devices or the characters actually in it. It felt a little odd and a tad excessive.
Early on I noticed a lot of music, when Herschel meets the real world after being pickled I got a heavy Avengers/Cap vibe which almost instantly changed to something very weird and out of place. Almost as suddenly I stopped noticing the music at all, if it was still there it blended a lot better with the scenes... I'll just have to shrug my shoulders on that one.
Everything about An American Pickle is up and down, an odd but interesting story idea, a lack of laughs for a comedy, some great use of atmosphere to illustrate Ben's mood... but that all comes together (or rather it doesn't) into something that left me feeling a little pickled myself.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-american-pickle-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Social Media involvement in political manipulation? Don’t be ridiculous!
Set in the near future “The Circle” tells a horror story of the social media age involving an omnipotent American corporate, pitched somewhere between being Facebook-like and Google-like (note, lawyers, I just said “like”!) Emma Watson (“Beauty and the Beast“) plays young intern Mae who, partly through the aid of family friend Annie (Karen Gillan, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Doctor Who”) but mostly through her own aptitude, lands a foothold job in customer services for the company. With the lush corporate campus fast becoming home, Mae is quickly singled out as having “executive potential” by the charismatic CEO Bailey (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“) and his more taciturn sidekick Stenton (US comedian Patton Oswalt).
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania (2023) in Movies
Feb 16, 2023
Life for Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is good. He is basking in the recognition
and fame that has come with his work with the Avengers and saving half the
universe from Thanos and has even become a best-selling author.
He has a successful relationship with Hope (Evangeline Lilly) who has
taken her father’s company to new heights and they have managed to blend
their personal and professional lives and enjoy a very happy life.
Scott does worry about his daughter Cassie (Kathryn Newton) as he lost
several years with her during the Blip and she is an activist who has been
arrested for her efforts including a hysterical prank on the police with
Pym technology.
Cassie is constantly on her father for not doing more as she feels that he
is more focused on the past battles with the Avengers and not the day to
day struggles people are facing. Over dinner, she tells Hope and her dad as
well as Hank (Michael Douglas), and Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer), whom she
studied Hank’s journals while they were in the Blip and has developed a
Quantum beacon which can map the Quantum Realm without having to venture
to the sub-atomic relay where until recently nobody had been able to
return from.
This news sends Janet into a panic during a demonstration and the four are
soon sucked into the realm and discover a diverse and thriving ecosystem
as well as an abundance of strange and dangerous creatures.
Janet is clearly hiding something and is frantic that they must leave but
their party has been scattered and they soon learn that she fears and
individual known as Kang (Jonathan Majors).
While she was trapped in the realm for thirty years, Janet encountered
King and helped him regain his power source but in doing so, learned he
was a banished conquerer who can manipulate time, space, and the
multiverse.
Her actions to trap Kang and lead a resistance to the vast empire he
created has set the stage as Janet has now returned to see what has
developed and Kang will stop at nothing to regain his power source to
escape and wreck his wrath on trillions.
Naturally, it is up to Scott, Hope, and the team to find a way to fight the
evil and powerful Kang to save the day.
The film is a darker tale than people might expect from an Ant-man movie
but in kicking off Phase 5 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the movie is
a visual splendor filled with amazing visuals, landscapes, and characters.
The film takes a bit of time to get to the action but when it arrives it
delivers and the performance of Majors as Kang is captivating it will
be interesting to see where the storyline evolves over the next series of
films leading up to “The Avengers: The Kang Dynasty” and beyond.
“Ant-man and the Wasp: Quantumania may not break loads of new ground in
terms of a Marvel film but Director Peyton Reed knows the characters well
and delivers a story that should resonate with the fans and the strong
cast and addition of Majors along with the great visuals make this
another winner for Marvel.
4 stars out of 5
and fame that has come with his work with the Avengers and saving half the
universe from Thanos and has even become a best-selling author.
He has a successful relationship with Hope (Evangeline Lilly) who has
taken her father’s company to new heights and they have managed to blend
their personal and professional lives and enjoy a very happy life.
Scott does worry about his daughter Cassie (Kathryn Newton) as he lost
several years with her during the Blip and she is an activist who has been
arrested for her efforts including a hysterical prank on the police with
Pym technology.
Cassie is constantly on her father for not doing more as she feels that he
is more focused on the past battles with the Avengers and not the day to
day struggles people are facing. Over dinner, she tells Hope and her dad as
well as Hank (Michael Douglas), and Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer), whom she
studied Hank’s journals while they were in the Blip and has developed a
Quantum beacon which can map the Quantum Realm without having to venture
to the sub-atomic relay where until recently nobody had been able to
return from.
This news sends Janet into a panic during a demonstration and the four are
soon sucked into the realm and discover a diverse and thriving ecosystem
as well as an abundance of strange and dangerous creatures.
Janet is clearly hiding something and is frantic that they must leave but
their party has been scattered and they soon learn that she fears and
individual known as Kang (Jonathan Majors).
While she was trapped in the realm for thirty years, Janet encountered
King and helped him regain his power source but in doing so, learned he
was a banished conquerer who can manipulate time, space, and the
multiverse.
Her actions to trap Kang and lead a resistance to the vast empire he
created has set the stage as Janet has now returned to see what has
developed and Kang will stop at nothing to regain his power source to
escape and wreck his wrath on trillions.
Naturally, it is up to Scott, Hope, and the team to find a way to fight the
evil and powerful Kang to save the day.
The film is a darker tale than people might expect from an Ant-man movie
but in kicking off Phase 5 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the movie is
a visual splendor filled with amazing visuals, landscapes, and characters.
The film takes a bit of time to get to the action but when it arrives it
delivers and the performance of Majors as Kang is captivating it will
be interesting to see where the storyline evolves over the next series of
films leading up to “The Avengers: The Kang Dynasty” and beyond.
“Ant-man and the Wasp: Quantumania may not break loads of new ground in
terms of a Marvel film but Director Peyton Reed knows the characters well
and delivers a story that should resonate with the fans and the strong
cast and addition of Majors along with the great visuals make this
another winner for Marvel.
4 stars out of 5
Hazel (1853 KP) rated How to Stop Time in Books
Jun 30, 2017
Favourite book of 2017 so far
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
All the world’s a stage/And all the men and women merely players/They have their exits and their entrances/And one man in his time plays many parts …
How to Stop Time is British author Matt Haig’s latest novel, and a very interesting one it is, too. In the present day, Tom Hazard is a 40-something-looking man who has landed himself with the position of history teacher at a comprehensive school in Tower Hamlets. Despite not having any formal training, Tom is the perfect candidate for the position because, despite his looks, he is 439 years old. But, that is a secret that no one must ever discover.
The book jumps back and forth between the current time period and flashbacks to various events during Tom’s extensive past. Born in 1581, Tom has experienced a great part of British history and major events around the world. Constantly changing his name and identification, he moved around the world, switching locations whenever people began to get suspicious of his never-aging body.
After a couple of centuries, Tom met a man with the same condition as himself, who revealed that there were many people in the same predicament. Promising to be able to help keep him safe, the stranger coerces Tom into a union called the Albatross Society. There are many rules and conditions to follow, however, the most important advice is to never fall in love. Unfortunately, Tom has already done this.
In London 1623, Tom met the love of his life, Rose, who he eventually married and with whom he had a daughter. Although Tom does age, it is at the rate of one year every 15; therefore he eventually had to leave his family in order to keep them safe. However, his daughter Marion has inherited his condition and Tom spends his subsequent years trying to find her. With promises to help him on his quest, Tom reluctantly joins the Albatross Society, despite their questionable ways.
All Tom wants is to be able to lead a normal life, yet the narrative reveals how impossible this has been, both in the past and now in the present. From Elizabethan England to Elizabeth II’s reign, Tom lives through several monarchs, wars, colloquial changes, industrialisation, sanitisation of comestibles, and the introduction of digital technology. Without the added pressure of keeping his true identity disguised, it is very interesting to experience historical events through the eyes of the protagonist.
The ending, unfortunately, does not quite satisfy the growing excitement and interest of the rest of the novel. Important things happen too quickly, making it confusing to understand the main storyline. The majority of the story appears to only be setting the scene for the final couple of chapters, but as this is so fascinating, there cannot be too much complaint.
Presuming that Haig has done his research and that the historical periods are factually correct, How to Stop Time is as educational as it is entertaining. History lovers will enjoy reading about famous people such as Shakespeare and Charlie Chaplin, as well as getting an insight into the daily lives of past societies. Most importantly, Tom is a captivating character, who, despite having lived for four centuries, is still as socially awkward as the best of us.
How to Stop Time contains a fantastic concept about the progression of time and aging, but its most poignant point is the emphasis on finding and being you. Change is an inevitable certainty, as witnessed by Tom whose current world looks nothing like his memories. Although people must adapt to the on-going changes, living how you want is more important than adjusting to fit in with everyone else. In essence, do not be afraid to let the world see your true self.
All the world’s a stage/And all the men and women merely players/They have their exits and their entrances/And one man in his time plays many parts …
How to Stop Time is British author Matt Haig’s latest novel, and a very interesting one it is, too. In the present day, Tom Hazard is a 40-something-looking man who has landed himself with the position of history teacher at a comprehensive school in Tower Hamlets. Despite not having any formal training, Tom is the perfect candidate for the position because, despite his looks, he is 439 years old. But, that is a secret that no one must ever discover.
The book jumps back and forth between the current time period and flashbacks to various events during Tom’s extensive past. Born in 1581, Tom has experienced a great part of British history and major events around the world. Constantly changing his name and identification, he moved around the world, switching locations whenever people began to get suspicious of his never-aging body.
After a couple of centuries, Tom met a man with the same condition as himself, who revealed that there were many people in the same predicament. Promising to be able to help keep him safe, the stranger coerces Tom into a union called the Albatross Society. There are many rules and conditions to follow, however, the most important advice is to never fall in love. Unfortunately, Tom has already done this.
In London 1623, Tom met the love of his life, Rose, who he eventually married and with whom he had a daughter. Although Tom does age, it is at the rate of one year every 15; therefore he eventually had to leave his family in order to keep them safe. However, his daughter Marion has inherited his condition and Tom spends his subsequent years trying to find her. With promises to help him on his quest, Tom reluctantly joins the Albatross Society, despite their questionable ways.
All Tom wants is to be able to lead a normal life, yet the narrative reveals how impossible this has been, both in the past and now in the present. From Elizabethan England to Elizabeth II’s reign, Tom lives through several monarchs, wars, colloquial changes, industrialisation, sanitisation of comestibles, and the introduction of digital technology. Without the added pressure of keeping his true identity disguised, it is very interesting to experience historical events through the eyes of the protagonist.
The ending, unfortunately, does not quite satisfy the growing excitement and interest of the rest of the novel. Important things happen too quickly, making it confusing to understand the main storyline. The majority of the story appears to only be setting the scene for the final couple of chapters, but as this is so fascinating, there cannot be too much complaint.
Presuming that Haig has done his research and that the historical periods are factually correct, How to Stop Time is as educational as it is entertaining. History lovers will enjoy reading about famous people such as Shakespeare and Charlie Chaplin, as well as getting an insight into the daily lives of past societies. Most importantly, Tom is a captivating character, who, despite having lived for four centuries, is still as socially awkward as the best of us.
How to Stop Time contains a fantastic concept about the progression of time and aging, but its most poignant point is the emphasis on finding and being you. Change is an inevitable certainty, as witnessed by Tom whose current world looks nothing like his memories. Although people must adapt to the on-going changes, living how you want is more important than adjusting to fit in with everyone else. In essence, do not be afraid to let the world see your true self.
Gotham is the kind of show where I wonder whether they tried to save money by just having the interns write the script. It's got that stilted, on-the-nose kind of dialogue that makes me just feel bad for the actors. For a while I thought the quality of the writing varied from scene to scene, but it was really just that a certain few actors (those that play Fish Mooney, Ed Nygma, and Harvey Bullock spring to mind) that were able to transcend the material they were working with, while others struggled and some just seemed to give up.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Samsung Galaxy S10 in Tech
Mar 11, 2019 (Updated Mar 18, 2019)
Impressive
I'll begin by saying that I upgraded from an S8 to an S10. So my opinion of the S10 is based on my experience of the S8.
Looks wise, this phone is stunning. The virtually bezel-less display looks amazing and the cut out hole for the front camera works surprisingly well. I love that they've kept the edge screen too. The back of the phone with the new cameras layout looks very sleek and the prism white version that I opted for looks beautiful. The gorilla glass casing too feels so smooth and makes for a very nice phone to hold. My only criticism, which in all fairness goes for all phones not just the S10, is that this is a stunning phone but because it's not indestructible, it has to have a chunky ugly case and/or screen protector to protect it. Which for me spoils the enjoyment of having a phone that's both nice to look at and hold, and I just wish they'd find a way of making the phone more durable. Size wise it's ever so slightly bigger than the S8 but yet feels just as thin and light.
The display is visually flawless and vivid, and the processor is impressively fast. I'd thought my old S8 was fine and quick to use, but I can really see the difference in the processing speed in this. Storage capacity now comes at 128GB as standard - how we used to cope with phones with 16GB I'll never know. The cameras are definitely better than the S8 and more than good enough for what I use them for, with some manual features that would put some digital cameras to shame. The battery seems much improved although it's still early days to see whether it depletes over time. The new interface itself looks noticeably different but without making any major changes, and I really like it. And I'm glad they haven't done anything drastic. The only change I don't like is to Bixby, but I've never been a fan so its hardly worth caring.
I'm intrigued with features like the wireless power share, although I'm not sure when I'd get the chance to test this out. For me though the biggest feature change is the fingerprint sensor in the screen. And at the moment, I'm going to need a little convincing. Having the fingerprint sensor built into the sensor is a smart move and is definitely a much better location than the back like the S8. However it seems a little too specific and temperamental sometimes. If you don't put your finger in exactly the right place/position, it doesn't work. It doesn't even seem to like it when you are doing the right thing. I may reserve judgement on this for a while and hope that this is down to me getting used to a different type of sensor.
The only other glitch that I've spotted is with the use of headphones and Spotify. The headphone controls & screen lock don't seem to register with Spotify immediately and cutout or dont work. Annoying, but I have figured out a quick fix by using the lock screen controls first before using the headphones. With this being a new phone, I'm hoping this will get resolved in an update soon.
In short, this is a stunning looking phone that works well and is very slick. It may not have a massive amount of new features, but phone technology advances do appear to be slowing down and this is a much better upgrade than the S9 claimed to be.
Edit: I completely forgot another slightly irritating feature (or lack of) on the S10 - they've removed the LED indicator! I always loved this about the earlier Samsungs and while I know you have the AED to check notifications, it's not quite the same as a multicoloured flashing LED...
Looks wise, this phone is stunning. The virtually bezel-less display looks amazing and the cut out hole for the front camera works surprisingly well. I love that they've kept the edge screen too. The back of the phone with the new cameras layout looks very sleek and the prism white version that I opted for looks beautiful. The gorilla glass casing too feels so smooth and makes for a very nice phone to hold. My only criticism, which in all fairness goes for all phones not just the S10, is that this is a stunning phone but because it's not indestructible, it has to have a chunky ugly case and/or screen protector to protect it. Which for me spoils the enjoyment of having a phone that's both nice to look at and hold, and I just wish they'd find a way of making the phone more durable. Size wise it's ever so slightly bigger than the S8 but yet feels just as thin and light.
The display is visually flawless and vivid, and the processor is impressively fast. I'd thought my old S8 was fine and quick to use, but I can really see the difference in the processing speed in this. Storage capacity now comes at 128GB as standard - how we used to cope with phones with 16GB I'll never know. The cameras are definitely better than the S8 and more than good enough for what I use them for, with some manual features that would put some digital cameras to shame. The battery seems much improved although it's still early days to see whether it depletes over time. The new interface itself looks noticeably different but without making any major changes, and I really like it. And I'm glad they haven't done anything drastic. The only change I don't like is to Bixby, but I've never been a fan so its hardly worth caring.
I'm intrigued with features like the wireless power share, although I'm not sure when I'd get the chance to test this out. For me though the biggest feature change is the fingerprint sensor in the screen. And at the moment, I'm going to need a little convincing. Having the fingerprint sensor built into the sensor is a smart move and is definitely a much better location than the back like the S8. However it seems a little too specific and temperamental sometimes. If you don't put your finger in exactly the right place/position, it doesn't work. It doesn't even seem to like it when you are doing the right thing. I may reserve judgement on this for a while and hope that this is down to me getting used to a different type of sensor.
The only other glitch that I've spotted is with the use of headphones and Spotify. The headphone controls & screen lock don't seem to register with Spotify immediately and cutout or dont work. Annoying, but I have figured out a quick fix by using the lock screen controls first before using the headphones. With this being a new phone, I'm hoping this will get resolved in an update soon.
In short, this is a stunning looking phone that works well and is very slick. It may not have a massive amount of new features, but phone technology advances do appear to be slowing down and this is a much better upgrade than the S9 claimed to be.
Edit: I completely forgot another slightly irritating feature (or lack of) on the S10 - they've removed the LED indicator! I always loved this about the earlier Samsungs and while I know you have the AED to check notifications, it's not quite the same as a multicoloured flashing LED...