Search
Search results
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Videodrome: Days of O'Blivion in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book from the author in exchange for an honest review</i>
Written as a prequel to David Cronenberg’s horror film, Lee McGeorge explores the potential scenario that led up to the surrealist events in <i>Videodrome</i>. This short story is more science fiction than horror in nature as it only builds up the background and setting to the point in which the film begins.
<i>Days of O’Blivion</i>, as well as the original film, is set during the cold war between the US and USSR. It is a period of time threatened with atomic weapons of mass destruction, and the competition to create the most superior technology. In this particular scenario, two men: Professor Brian Olivier and his friend Barry have been experimenting with special television technology resulting in interesting outcomes. Their product, which they name <i>Veraceo</i> –a compound of Veracity and Video –, has the ability to make everyone believe what they are seeing on screen to be true. This could be a big boon to advertising establishments, however cause dire consequences if found in the wrong hands, i.e. communists.
Readers, including those unfamiliar with the film, should be able to ascertain several problems this technological advancement could pose, making it all the more foreboding when an unknown but powerful company pays out thousands of dollars to become partners with Brian and Barry. What makes it all the more ominous is Brian’s hesitancy in accepting the offer in contrast with Barry’s excitement. As the technology is adapted further it becomes clear that they are dealing with very dangerous concepts and people – hallucinations being only the smallest of side affects.
Although Lee McGeorge is using an already existing story, he makes this prequel his own by exploring the hows and whys <i>Veraceo</i> came to be developed. His narrative is accurate in terms of the way it builds up to coincide with the film script without damaging or giving new meaning to Cronenberg’s original storyline.
Although not horror as in scary, <i>Days of O’Blivion</i> contains many horrific scenes. Most of these are pornographic in nature and rather disturbing, particularly more so as the story progresses – something that lessened the general enjoyment of the book. The overall nature of the book (and film, probably) may appeal more towards a male market, particularly those with a less delicate temperament.
As with his previous books, which also incorporate pre-existing ideas, Lee McGeorge writes well in a way that engages the reader and even interests those without prior knowledge of the subject. There is also additional digital content alongside this book. Those lucky enough to own a paper back copy will be able to access these using an NFC enabled device.
Written as a prequel to David Cronenberg’s horror film, Lee McGeorge explores the potential scenario that led up to the surrealist events in <i>Videodrome</i>. This short story is more science fiction than horror in nature as it only builds up the background and setting to the point in which the film begins.
<i>Days of O’Blivion</i>, as well as the original film, is set during the cold war between the US and USSR. It is a period of time threatened with atomic weapons of mass destruction, and the competition to create the most superior technology. In this particular scenario, two men: Professor Brian Olivier and his friend Barry have been experimenting with special television technology resulting in interesting outcomes. Their product, which they name <i>Veraceo</i> –a compound of Veracity and Video –, has the ability to make everyone believe what they are seeing on screen to be true. This could be a big boon to advertising establishments, however cause dire consequences if found in the wrong hands, i.e. communists.
Readers, including those unfamiliar with the film, should be able to ascertain several problems this technological advancement could pose, making it all the more foreboding when an unknown but powerful company pays out thousands of dollars to become partners with Brian and Barry. What makes it all the more ominous is Brian’s hesitancy in accepting the offer in contrast with Barry’s excitement. As the technology is adapted further it becomes clear that they are dealing with very dangerous concepts and people – hallucinations being only the smallest of side affects.
Although Lee McGeorge is using an already existing story, he makes this prequel his own by exploring the hows and whys <i>Veraceo</i> came to be developed. His narrative is accurate in terms of the way it builds up to coincide with the film script without damaging or giving new meaning to Cronenberg’s original storyline.
Although not horror as in scary, <i>Days of O’Blivion</i> contains many horrific scenes. Most of these are pornographic in nature and rather disturbing, particularly more so as the story progresses – something that lessened the general enjoyment of the book. The overall nature of the book (and film, probably) may appeal more towards a male market, particularly those with a less delicate temperament.
As with his previous books, which also incorporate pre-existing ideas, Lee McGeorge writes well in a way that engages the reader and even interests those without prior knowledge of the subject. There is also additional digital content alongside this book. Those lucky enough to own a paper back copy will be able to access these using an NFC enabled device.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Transformers (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Based on the popular line of toys and animated television series from the 80’s. Steven Spielberg and Michael Bay have teamed up to create a mega million FX extravaganza that will delight fans both old and new.
The story involves a group of sentient machines who have battled for centuries in an effort to locate and possess an all powerful object. The kind Autobots led by Optimus Prime, wish to locate and destroy the artifact to keep it from the evil Decepticons who would use the artificat for their own evil purposes, and the deaths of billions.
The film opens with a spectacular battle at a U.S. military installation in the middle east, where one of the Decepticons is attempting to access sensative information from the computer network. Overwhelmed by the attack and subsequent assault on Air Force One, the U.S. government has called in the best and brightest in effort to get to the bottom of the mysterious attacks and the mysterious assailants.
Meanwhile, mild mannered high school student Sam Witicky (Shia LaBeouf), is trying to raise money for a car, and uses his class presentation to hawk his Ebay auctions, unaware that the fate of the universe will soon rest in his hands. After purchasing a used Camaro and giving a ride to the hottest girl in school Mikaela (Megan Fox), Sam thinks his luck is about to change. Little does Sam know that his car is actually one of the advanced scouts for the Autobots, who are attempting to locate one of the items in Sam’s online auction, as it actually contains clues as to the location of the lost artifact.
In short order, the two sides are facing off in several shape changing battles with Sam, Mikaela, and the rest of humanity caught in the balance. Bay and Spielberg have done a great job of combining jaw-dropping FX and action with the humor, charm, and fun that made the original series such a huge success. The audience at my press screening reacted very positively to the film, and there were numerous cheers and rounds of enthusiastic applause throughout the film.
If I had to find fault with the film, it would be that at roughly the 3/4 point, a plot line involving John Turturro as an agent in a secret organization seems forced and unnecessary, as it greatly detracts from the pacing and action of the film. Until this point, the film was very engrossing and moved along at a brisk clip. When the film gets back to the action, it delivers with a solid finale, that while using some of the action film staples, still manages to keep it exciting.
LaBeof works well with Fox and there are numerous supporting roles and cameos that make “Transformers” a pleasant, if silly treat.
The story involves a group of sentient machines who have battled for centuries in an effort to locate and possess an all powerful object. The kind Autobots led by Optimus Prime, wish to locate and destroy the artifact to keep it from the evil Decepticons who would use the artificat for their own evil purposes, and the deaths of billions.
The film opens with a spectacular battle at a U.S. military installation in the middle east, where one of the Decepticons is attempting to access sensative information from the computer network. Overwhelmed by the attack and subsequent assault on Air Force One, the U.S. government has called in the best and brightest in effort to get to the bottom of the mysterious attacks and the mysterious assailants.
Meanwhile, mild mannered high school student Sam Witicky (Shia LaBeouf), is trying to raise money for a car, and uses his class presentation to hawk his Ebay auctions, unaware that the fate of the universe will soon rest in his hands. After purchasing a used Camaro and giving a ride to the hottest girl in school Mikaela (Megan Fox), Sam thinks his luck is about to change. Little does Sam know that his car is actually one of the advanced scouts for the Autobots, who are attempting to locate one of the items in Sam’s online auction, as it actually contains clues as to the location of the lost artifact.
In short order, the two sides are facing off in several shape changing battles with Sam, Mikaela, and the rest of humanity caught in the balance. Bay and Spielberg have done a great job of combining jaw-dropping FX and action with the humor, charm, and fun that made the original series such a huge success. The audience at my press screening reacted very positively to the film, and there were numerous cheers and rounds of enthusiastic applause throughout the film.
If I had to find fault with the film, it would be that at roughly the 3/4 point, a plot line involving John Turturro as an agent in a secret organization seems forced and unnecessary, as it greatly detracts from the pacing and action of the film. Until this point, the film was very engrossing and moved along at a brisk clip. When the film gets back to the action, it delivers with a solid finale, that while using some of the action film staples, still manages to keep it exciting.
LaBeof works well with Fox and there are numerous supporting roles and cameos that make “Transformers” a pleasant, if silly treat.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I'm in danger of spouting praise all the way through this review. I honestly can't bring to mind anything that I didn't like about the film.
Even before it started you're gearing up for the main event with the 20th Century Fox tune rejigged in the Queen style, which I thought was a nice touch.
So much of this made me smile, genuinely grinning from ear to ear. The sequences they put together throughout were fun and done in a way that they flowed really well. With no dialogue in the compilation pieces, just the background of music and characters, there's always a danger that something won't make sense or it's done too fast to keep track of. I didn't feel that was an issue at all here.
I really enjoyed the way the creation of the songs were shown on the screen. It's difficult to explain without the visuals, but you could see the thought processes coming to life through the actors. The connection you get between the band members and the music feels very real, especially when you see the tension dissipate when there's a new beat to explore. One scene in particular gave me goosebumps, and that was seeing Freddie looking out over the fields as the hint of a piano tune is playing in the background... we all know that tune, and the anticipation of what's coming next is electric.
Rami Malek really did something stunning with this role. His reactions felt so real in all the scenes. Seeing Freddie react to the crowds singing their songs back at them was such a powerful moment.
All the cast members were great. The band in particular. At some points I was astonished that I wasn't watching a documentary with the actual people in it.
I wasn't sure how they were going to handle Freddie's illness in the film, but I'm relieved that it was done in a sensitive way. The serious note it take when showing him watching a report about AIDs on the television really takes hold when you hear Who Wants To Live Forever playing in the background. It gives you time to realise just how bad the diagnosis was back then. It also makes you realise just how far medicine has come in such a short time.
Rounding out the film with the Live Aid set is amazing. It brings the joy of music, performance, and fandom to life. I genuinely can't wait to go and see this one again.
What you should do
The only reason not to see this film is if you don't like Queen's music.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That live music feeling, those goosebumps, the singing at the top of your lungs. That good vibe is what everyone needs in their life.
Even before it started you're gearing up for the main event with the 20th Century Fox tune rejigged in the Queen style, which I thought was a nice touch.
So much of this made me smile, genuinely grinning from ear to ear. The sequences they put together throughout were fun and done in a way that they flowed really well. With no dialogue in the compilation pieces, just the background of music and characters, there's always a danger that something won't make sense or it's done too fast to keep track of. I didn't feel that was an issue at all here.
I really enjoyed the way the creation of the songs were shown on the screen. It's difficult to explain without the visuals, but you could see the thought processes coming to life through the actors. The connection you get between the band members and the music feels very real, especially when you see the tension dissipate when there's a new beat to explore. One scene in particular gave me goosebumps, and that was seeing Freddie looking out over the fields as the hint of a piano tune is playing in the background... we all know that tune, and the anticipation of what's coming next is electric.
Rami Malek really did something stunning with this role. His reactions felt so real in all the scenes. Seeing Freddie react to the crowds singing their songs back at them was such a powerful moment.
All the cast members were great. The band in particular. At some points I was astonished that I wasn't watching a documentary with the actual people in it.
I wasn't sure how they were going to handle Freddie's illness in the film, but I'm relieved that it was done in a sensitive way. The serious note it take when showing him watching a report about AIDs on the television really takes hold when you hear Who Wants To Live Forever playing in the background. It gives you time to realise just how bad the diagnosis was back then. It also makes you realise just how far medicine has come in such a short time.
Rounding out the film with the Live Aid set is amazing. It brings the joy of music, performance, and fandom to life. I genuinely can't wait to go and see this one again.
What you should do
The only reason not to see this film is if you don't like Queen's music.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That live music feeling, those goosebumps, the singing at the top of your lungs. That good vibe is what everyone needs in their life.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Truth (2015) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019
The truth is out there...
Doubtful anyone from outside the United States (or even many within the US) would remember "Rathergate", the subject this film explores, but I found it fascinating nonetheless.
The US during the 2004 presidential election between George W Bush and John Kerry saw the usual mudslinging back and forth, but this film is not really about that. The film focuses on a news story by CBS news involving then airmen George W Bush and his "attempt" to get out of going to Vietnam and certain important military paper which were supposed to have corroborated these events.
Producer Mary Mapes and then anchor Dan Rather decided to air the story on 60 Minutes before they had flushed out all their sources and may have brushed aside criticism which happened to be against their political beliefs and ran with the story anyways. After airing in the fall of 2004 certain aspects of the documents came into question as to whether they could've been written with typewriters of the time or whether these documents were forgeries made by someone who could've merely used Microsoft Word instead.
Repeated attempts to legitimize their accuracy ended up having the opposite effects having witnesses change their stories, allegiances or even admit they had not been honest when presenting their original facts.
Since this is based on actual events, I can say this ended up costing producer Mapes and Rather their careers and sullied their reputations for the rest of their lives.
Even though the film has a very specific set of facts it has to deal with, I found it just as interesting when the director showed scenes of the audience viewing the story when it aired and then began to think about the state of modern news.
Nowadays, most people get their news cycle from internet headlines, scrolling information at the bottoms of television screens and even siloed one-sided stories that support only their own personal political beliefs
I think the broader message this film is trying to convey is that news organizations have the utmost responsibility to not only the report the news, but to keep their biases out of the mix and to make sure every fact is checked and rechecked to make sure they report accurately. News can change public opinion and even though they mostly get things correct, mostly isn't good enough.
I love Cate Blanchett and the legend Robert Redford and they don't disappoint here. The screenplay by writer and first time director James Vanderbilt is pointed and mostly avoids injecting opinion into the facts and presents an interesting and fascinating film I would easily recommend.
The US during the 2004 presidential election between George W Bush and John Kerry saw the usual mudslinging back and forth, but this film is not really about that. The film focuses on a news story by CBS news involving then airmen George W Bush and his "attempt" to get out of going to Vietnam and certain important military paper which were supposed to have corroborated these events.
Producer Mary Mapes and then anchor Dan Rather decided to air the story on 60 Minutes before they had flushed out all their sources and may have brushed aside criticism which happened to be against their political beliefs and ran with the story anyways. After airing in the fall of 2004 certain aspects of the documents came into question as to whether they could've been written with typewriters of the time or whether these documents were forgeries made by someone who could've merely used Microsoft Word instead.
Repeated attempts to legitimize their accuracy ended up having the opposite effects having witnesses change their stories, allegiances or even admit they had not been honest when presenting their original facts.
Since this is based on actual events, I can say this ended up costing producer Mapes and Rather their careers and sullied their reputations for the rest of their lives.
Even though the film has a very specific set of facts it has to deal with, I found it just as interesting when the director showed scenes of the audience viewing the story when it aired and then began to think about the state of modern news.
Nowadays, most people get their news cycle from internet headlines, scrolling information at the bottoms of television screens and even siloed one-sided stories that support only their own personal political beliefs
I think the broader message this film is trying to convey is that news organizations have the utmost responsibility to not only the report the news, but to keep their biases out of the mix and to make sure every fact is checked and rechecked to make sure they report accurately. News can change public opinion and even though they mostly get things correct, mostly isn't good enough.
I love Cate Blanchett and the legend Robert Redford and they don't disappoint here. The screenplay by writer and first time director James Vanderbilt is pointed and mostly avoids injecting opinion into the facts and presents an interesting and fascinating film I would easily recommend.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Fairly Tale In Hollywood But Lacks Finesse And Excitement
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a 2019 dramedy (drama/comedy) movie written and directed by Quentin Tarantino and producers David Heyman and Shannon Mcintosh. It was produced by Columbia Pictures, Bona Film Group, Heyday Films, and Visiona Romantica and distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing. The movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad, Margot Robbie, Emile Hirsch and Al Pacino.
In 1969 Los Angeles, actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his best friend and stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) navigate their way through an ever changing industry they hardly recognize anymore. Rick laments to Cliff that his career is over, having been the star of Bounty Law a 1950s Western television series and having trouble landing acting jobs as the lead in films. Dalton dreams of befriending actress Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and her husband, director Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha), who are now his neighbors, in order to resurrect his career. Booth, who lives in a trailer with his pitbull, Brandy, relies on Dalton for work because of rumors he killed his wife, and drives Dalton around town and does other odd jobs for him.
This movie was definitely not what I expected from Quentin Tarantino. It was very slow building, and honestly boring in a lot of ways. I kept waiting for something to happen, but half way through the movie, still nothing really did. The acting however was outstanding. Leonardo DiCaprio was excellent as Rick Dalton and Brad Pitt was a charmer, I think this movie was awesome in its portrayal of Hollywood from that time and was almost like a fairy tale about Hollywood in a way. The ending of the movie really didn't fit with the rest of the film and was controversial, but to me it didn't fit because it hyper violent like most of Tarantino's other films. To me the ending kind of saved the movie but I see how to others it didn't go with it. I usually really like Tarantino's films but I didn't particularly like this one altogether. It kind of was a collection of good scenes and acting but didn't deliver on an actual story that was good or compelling enough for me personally. But then again I didn't like Inglorious Bastards that much, and thought The Hateful 8 could have been better too. But I loved Django Unchained, and the Kill Bill films and pretty much all his other films. So I would give this movie a 6/10, it's above average in a lot of ways but just fell through for me equally in a lot of ways that can't justify a higher rating from me. Maybe it was overrated or over-hyped, or maybe I just had too high of expectations.
In 1969 Los Angeles, actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his best friend and stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) navigate their way through an ever changing industry they hardly recognize anymore. Rick laments to Cliff that his career is over, having been the star of Bounty Law a 1950s Western television series and having trouble landing acting jobs as the lead in films. Dalton dreams of befriending actress Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and her husband, director Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha), who are now his neighbors, in order to resurrect his career. Booth, who lives in a trailer with his pitbull, Brandy, relies on Dalton for work because of rumors he killed his wife, and drives Dalton around town and does other odd jobs for him.
This movie was definitely not what I expected from Quentin Tarantino. It was very slow building, and honestly boring in a lot of ways. I kept waiting for something to happen, but half way through the movie, still nothing really did. The acting however was outstanding. Leonardo DiCaprio was excellent as Rick Dalton and Brad Pitt was a charmer, I think this movie was awesome in its portrayal of Hollywood from that time and was almost like a fairy tale about Hollywood in a way. The ending of the movie really didn't fit with the rest of the film and was controversial, but to me it didn't fit because it hyper violent like most of Tarantino's other films. To me the ending kind of saved the movie but I see how to others it didn't go with it. I usually really like Tarantino's films but I didn't particularly like this one altogether. It kind of was a collection of good scenes and acting but didn't deliver on an actual story that was good or compelling enough for me personally. But then again I didn't like Inglorious Bastards that much, and thought The Hateful 8 could have been better too. But I loved Django Unchained, and the Kill Bill films and pretty much all his other films. So I would give this movie a 6/10, it's above average in a lot of ways but just fell through for me equally in a lot of ways that can't justify a higher rating from me. Maybe it was overrated or over-hyped, or maybe I just had too high of expectations.
Rick Astley recommended Hatful of Hollow by The Smiths in Music (curated)
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Walker (2007) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Characters – Carter Page III has made a career out of mingling around the women of high society, where he walks them in parties to keep them entertained, his actions never put the rumours in the air, until one of the ladies is involved in a murder, Carter sees the once always open doors closing around him, forcing him to uncover the truth to save his own reputation. Lynn Lockner is one of the most frequent clients for Carter, they have a close friendship which is tested when she is involved in the murder of a man, did she discover the body or have something to do with it? Natalie Van Miter is another one of the high society that enjoys Carter’s company only she doesn’t always play fair with the others in the circle. Jack Delorean isn’t the biggest fan of Carter and certain members of the high society, he is always looking for dirt on them.
Performances – Woody Harrelson is the highlight of the film with his engaging performance in an otherwise forgettable story. Kristin Scott Thomas, Lauren Bacall, Ned Beatty bring their big name presence to the film without making the impact to make you care about their characters.
Story – The story takes us into the high society world where the rich believe they can get away with anything, we follow a walker that mingles with the ladies to keep the business with gossip etc, when a murder is committed, he becomes the prime suspect and must figure out how to clear his name before his reputation is ruined. This story is just like you would imagine, it is a series of conversations from people that are always looking down on people who just want to take each other of their high horses through the eyes of a man desperately trying to stay within the circle. This story could have been extended to give more development to the characters through a television series, which would have been a lot more interesting to watch.
Crime/Mystery – The crime side of the film follows the aftermath of the murder which adds to the mystery as to who committed it and why, we do get plenty of suspects, but most people we meet seem to have a shady reason to be in the position they are in.
Settings – The film is set in the Washington high society world, with flashy parties, massive apartments, everything you don’t see people in natural life.
Scene of the Movie – Reporting the murder.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough time to address the real issues touched on within the story.
Final Thoughts – This is a story that had potential to be much bigger and more interesting only for it to become mostly forgettable with the slow pacing and weak character development.
Overall: Slow and disappointing.
Performances – Woody Harrelson is the highlight of the film with his engaging performance in an otherwise forgettable story. Kristin Scott Thomas, Lauren Bacall, Ned Beatty bring their big name presence to the film without making the impact to make you care about their characters.
Story – The story takes us into the high society world where the rich believe they can get away with anything, we follow a walker that mingles with the ladies to keep the business with gossip etc, when a murder is committed, he becomes the prime suspect and must figure out how to clear his name before his reputation is ruined. This story is just like you would imagine, it is a series of conversations from people that are always looking down on people who just want to take each other of their high horses through the eyes of a man desperately trying to stay within the circle. This story could have been extended to give more development to the characters through a television series, which would have been a lot more interesting to watch.
Crime/Mystery – The crime side of the film follows the aftermath of the murder which adds to the mystery as to who committed it and why, we do get plenty of suspects, but most people we meet seem to have a shady reason to be in the position they are in.
Settings – The film is set in the Washington high society world, with flashy parties, massive apartments, everything you don’t see people in natural life.
Scene of the Movie – Reporting the murder.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough time to address the real issues touched on within the story.
Final Thoughts – This is a story that had potential to be much bigger and more interesting only for it to become mostly forgettable with the slow pacing and weak character development.
Overall: Slow and disappointing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Jem and the Holograms (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Being a teenager is a confusing time, we want to be accepted, popular, and, at times, invisible. In a world where you feel overlooked and ignored, it is gratifying to have a voice, an identity, some special aspect that is going to make you stand out and be accepted. Jem and the Holograms attempts to make this a theme. Creating your identity and having the ability to shape and form it into a way that it becomes your own shield against the ills of the world. It is a very promising concept and idea when attempting to update the series for today’s audience. Unfortunately there isn’t much substance to the film. The substance that is apparent is quite shallow and undeveloped.
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Star Trek (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With declining attendance at conventions and a dwindling audience for recent films and the last Star Trek series, Enterprise, Paramount was desperate to find a way to breathe new life into their franchise. So they pinned their hopes on director J.J. Abrams. Even with a string of hit movies and television series under his belt, some believed that Abrams was facing an uphill battle in trying to resuscitate Star Trek, with its legions of rabid fans obsessively protective of the series’ 40-plus years of established history.
While many fans were thrilled with the choice of Abrams, some of the casting choices of its beloved characters were met with doubt and skepticism. Thankfully, the man behind such motion picture hits as “Cloverfield”, “Mission Impossible 3”, and television series LOST, Alias and Fringe, was more than up to the task and has crafted a visually spectacular action film that combines the best of Trek with groundbreaking effects and creative vitality.
Using a script by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the new film focuses on the early days of the crew, and how young James. T. Kirk (Chris Pine) went from being a joy-riding, bar-fighting hothead into captain of the Enterprise. Kirk is challenged by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to live up to the legacy of his father and make something of his life in Starfleet. Despite his cocky attitude, the young man is able to thrive at the academy despite his arrogant behavior and his womanizing ways.
At the same time, a threat has arisen in the form of a Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana), who seeks to cause massive death and destruction in his quest for vengeance. With danger looming, Kirk and his fellow classmates are pressed into action, and thanks to some skillful work from his friend Leonard Mc Coy (Karl Urban), Kirk finds himself onboard the new Federation flagship Enterprise.
En route to their destination, Kirk realizes they are heading into a trap and warns Captain Pike of his concerns. Naturally this does not sit well with some of the seasoned officers, especially Spock (Zachary Quinto), who sees the emotional Kirk as an unwanted reminder of his human half, which he tries to hide at all costs.
Eventually the Enterprise is confronted by Nero and in an impressive sequence of events Kirk and Sulu (John Cho), lead an orbital skydive mission to thwart Nero’s plot. Spock finds himself commanding the ship and he and Kirk, two polar opposites, disagree over a course of action. Citing insurbordination and dereliction, Spock expels Kirk from the ship onto a frigid and dangerous planet. What follows is an amazing and thrilling adventure that culminates in an impressive finale, that proves that Trek has got plenty of life left in it.
While I loved the film, I found that I had to detach myself from my love of classic Trek to fully enjoy it. The film covers changes in established cannon by setting events in an alternate timeline. Despite the different eras of the previous series and films, there was always a certain continuity to the ships, planets, and characters that always seemed to fit, which I found myself missing in this new incarnation.
In Abram’s version, the Enterprise engine room is awash in catwalks, pipes, and valves that seemed out of place on a ship set in the 23rd century. I also found myself asking why such strategically valuable planets such as Earth and Vulcan would not have massive defense fleets in orbit, and would task only a handful of ships for their defense. There was a suggestion, that the ships of the fleet were amassed elsewhere on another matter of importance, but that does not explain what would leave the planets relatively unguarded. Defense codes aside, I found it hard to believe that automated defenses would be all that was left behind, and that reinforcements were not available.
I also had an issue with what Nero was supposedly doing for 25 years and how he kept such a low profile while he plotted his revenge. The final issue I had was with product placement as I found it hard to believe that Nokia and its familiar ringtone and Budweiser would be around as Trek lore is based on the planet narrowly surviving a nuclear war in the past that nearly destroyed everything. While this may seem like minor criticism, from the perspective of a long time Star Trek fan, it contradicts much of what had been established.
Thankfully, Abrams and crew take the series in a new direction without totally losing sight of where it came from. There are many nods to the series and Abrams clearly respects the original material enough to let fans know that their beloved Trek is still there in the original timeline, with its history intact. By cleverly establishing a different timeline, Abrams has creative freedom to go in any direction he desires.
The cast is strong, with Chris Pine’s Kirk as cocky and entertaining as his predecessor. I loved Anton Yelchin as Chekov and his struggles with the English language, Simon Pegg’s quick quips as Scotty, and the sassy attitude Zoe Saldana’s injects into her Uhura. The amazing visuals and designs of the film are breathtaking and it was clear that the Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) crew pushed themselves to bring everything they had to the film. In the end, Star Trek is a remarkable film that, despite some issues, has a solid new lease on life. Abrams boldly, and triumphantly, goes where fans, old and new, will gladly follow.
While many fans were thrilled with the choice of Abrams, some of the casting choices of its beloved characters were met with doubt and skepticism. Thankfully, the man behind such motion picture hits as “Cloverfield”, “Mission Impossible 3”, and television series LOST, Alias and Fringe, was more than up to the task and has crafted a visually spectacular action film that combines the best of Trek with groundbreaking effects and creative vitality.
Using a script by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the new film focuses on the early days of the crew, and how young James. T. Kirk (Chris Pine) went from being a joy-riding, bar-fighting hothead into captain of the Enterprise. Kirk is challenged by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to live up to the legacy of his father and make something of his life in Starfleet. Despite his cocky attitude, the young man is able to thrive at the academy despite his arrogant behavior and his womanizing ways.
At the same time, a threat has arisen in the form of a Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana), who seeks to cause massive death and destruction in his quest for vengeance. With danger looming, Kirk and his fellow classmates are pressed into action, and thanks to some skillful work from his friend Leonard Mc Coy (Karl Urban), Kirk finds himself onboard the new Federation flagship Enterprise.
En route to their destination, Kirk realizes they are heading into a trap and warns Captain Pike of his concerns. Naturally this does not sit well with some of the seasoned officers, especially Spock (Zachary Quinto), who sees the emotional Kirk as an unwanted reminder of his human half, which he tries to hide at all costs.
Eventually the Enterprise is confronted by Nero and in an impressive sequence of events Kirk and Sulu (John Cho), lead an orbital skydive mission to thwart Nero’s plot. Spock finds himself commanding the ship and he and Kirk, two polar opposites, disagree over a course of action. Citing insurbordination and dereliction, Spock expels Kirk from the ship onto a frigid and dangerous planet. What follows is an amazing and thrilling adventure that culminates in an impressive finale, that proves that Trek has got plenty of life left in it.
While I loved the film, I found that I had to detach myself from my love of classic Trek to fully enjoy it. The film covers changes in established cannon by setting events in an alternate timeline. Despite the different eras of the previous series and films, there was always a certain continuity to the ships, planets, and characters that always seemed to fit, which I found myself missing in this new incarnation.
In Abram’s version, the Enterprise engine room is awash in catwalks, pipes, and valves that seemed out of place on a ship set in the 23rd century. I also found myself asking why such strategically valuable planets such as Earth and Vulcan would not have massive defense fleets in orbit, and would task only a handful of ships for their defense. There was a suggestion, that the ships of the fleet were amassed elsewhere on another matter of importance, but that does not explain what would leave the planets relatively unguarded. Defense codes aside, I found it hard to believe that automated defenses would be all that was left behind, and that reinforcements were not available.
I also had an issue with what Nero was supposedly doing for 25 years and how he kept such a low profile while he plotted his revenge. The final issue I had was with product placement as I found it hard to believe that Nokia and its familiar ringtone and Budweiser would be around as Trek lore is based on the planet narrowly surviving a nuclear war in the past that nearly destroyed everything. While this may seem like minor criticism, from the perspective of a long time Star Trek fan, it contradicts much of what had been established.
Thankfully, Abrams and crew take the series in a new direction without totally losing sight of where it came from. There are many nods to the series and Abrams clearly respects the original material enough to let fans know that their beloved Trek is still there in the original timeline, with its history intact. By cleverly establishing a different timeline, Abrams has creative freedom to go in any direction he desires.
The cast is strong, with Chris Pine’s Kirk as cocky and entertaining as his predecessor. I loved Anton Yelchin as Chekov and his struggles with the English language, Simon Pegg’s quick quips as Scotty, and the sassy attitude Zoe Saldana’s injects into her Uhura. The amazing visuals and designs of the film are breathtaking and it was clear that the Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) crew pushed themselves to bring everything they had to the film. In the end, Star Trek is a remarkable film that, despite some issues, has a solid new lease on life. Abrams boldly, and triumphantly, goes where fans, old and new, will gladly follow.
BBC Drama
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Many people in Britain may have recently watched the drama series Our Zoo on BBC1 about the Mottershead family who moved to Oakfield, Upton in 1930 with the aim of building a zoo without bars. Based on a true story the drama over exaggerated the difficulties the family faced in developing what became to be the famous Chester Zoo. Until 2010 when TV producer Adam Kemp approached her, June Mottershead had never thought about making her history available to the public. As the truth had to be bent slightly for the television production with the removal of certain characters and added romance, and, of course, the laws preventing chimpanzees from being filmed, June Mottershead has penned the true story, also called Our Zoo, which is just as fascinating as what was shown on screen.
June was only four when she moved to Upton with her parents, grandparents, and her fourteen-year-old sister Muriel as well as a selection of animals. The BBC1 drama only showed up until the point that her father, George, had finally been given permission to build his zoo despite the petition against it. In the book, however, this occurs within the first few chapters and then continues on until June’s marriage to her husband Fred Williams in 1949. In fact the time period of the narrative jumps around depending on the animals or events that June is describing.
A large chunk of the book is focused on the effect the Second World War had on the zoo. As can be expected the rationings of vital products took its toll on the animals’ diets and, although the zoo never took a direct hit, the Liverpool blitz caused havoc by destroying the glass tanks in the aquarium. On the other hand, the amount of animals rapidly grew, as it was not just humans that became refugees during the war.
It was a delight to read about June’s relationships with some of the animals, particularly Mary the chimpanzee who was also June’s best friend as a child and behaved in a humanlike manner. Alas, as well as the happy moments there were the inevitable upsetting accounts of the deaths some of the animals, either from old age, illness or accidents.
While Our Zoo cannot be described as a novel, it neither has the feel of an autobiography. The conversational tone of the writing made it a pleasure to read and easy to visualize (admittedly watching the televised version had already provided a certain image).
This easy to read book is a strong recommendation for those who enjoyed the BBC adaptation and wish to find out what happened next. It does not matter if you have not watched the drama, as it is overall a fascinating story to read.
Many people in Britain may have recently watched the drama series Our Zoo on BBC1 about the Mottershead family who moved to Oakfield, Upton in 1930 with the aim of building a zoo without bars. Based on a true story the drama over exaggerated the difficulties the family faced in developing what became to be the famous Chester Zoo. Until 2010 when TV producer Adam Kemp approached her, June Mottershead had never thought about making her history available to the public. As the truth had to be bent slightly for the television production with the removal of certain characters and added romance, and, of course, the laws preventing chimpanzees from being filmed, June Mottershead has penned the true story, also called Our Zoo, which is just as fascinating as what was shown on screen.
June was only four when she moved to Upton with her parents, grandparents, and her fourteen-year-old sister Muriel as well as a selection of animals. The BBC1 drama only showed up until the point that her father, George, had finally been given permission to build his zoo despite the petition against it. In the book, however, this occurs within the first few chapters and then continues on until June’s marriage to her husband Fred Williams in 1949. In fact the time period of the narrative jumps around depending on the animals or events that June is describing.
A large chunk of the book is focused on the effect the Second World War had on the zoo. As can be expected the rationings of vital products took its toll on the animals’ diets and, although the zoo never took a direct hit, the Liverpool blitz caused havoc by destroying the glass tanks in the aquarium. On the other hand, the amount of animals rapidly grew, as it was not just humans that became refugees during the war.
It was a delight to read about June’s relationships with some of the animals, particularly Mary the chimpanzee who was also June’s best friend as a child and behaved in a humanlike manner. Alas, as well as the happy moments there were the inevitable upsetting accounts of the deaths some of the animals, either from old age, illness or accidents.
While Our Zoo cannot be described as a novel, it neither has the feel of an autobiography. The conversational tone of the writing made it a pleasure to read and easy to visualize (admittedly watching the televised version had already provided a certain image).
This easy to read book is a strong recommendation for those who enjoyed the BBC adaptation and wish to find out what happened next. It does not matter if you have not watched the drama, as it is overall a fascinating story to read.