Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated King Kong Lives (1986) in Movies
Jun 15, 2018
Ape Sh*t
Inexplicably boring and frankly quite weird attempt to cash in on the Kong name: having survived being machine gunned off the top of the Twin Towers and falling five hundred metres onto concrete (and thus proving that some gorillas just can't take a hint), Kong is in a coma being looked after by Linda Hamilton, who should have read the script before signing on. A no-mark leading man is able to hunt up a female giant gorilla to help out with a blood transfusion, but when the two apes get it on and escape, there's panic all round.
History has seen many overly optimistic monster movies, but few quite as out-of-touch with reality as King Kong Lives. It's not just that the story is preposterous (it is), or that the special effects are terrible (they are), but that one of main emotional relationships at the heart of the story is realised through the medium of two stuntmen in not-great gorilla suits nuzzling up to each other in simulation of simian romance. Your mind rebels when it is exposed to this stuff. 'No,' comes the interior monologue, 'no. Even the big bird in The Giant Claw was more convincing than this. I object. I am on strike from this point on.' With your suspension of disbelief in full revolt, you are forced to watch the rest of the movie simply in 'how much worse can this possibly get?' mode. And the answer is: considerably. To be honest it's only the sheer badness of the movie that keeps it interesting; anything remotely competent is also rather dull. I don't think the 1976 version of King Kong is nearly as bad as most people say; it certainly looks like a classic compared to this.
History has seen many overly optimistic monster movies, but few quite as out-of-touch with reality as King Kong Lives. It's not just that the story is preposterous (it is), or that the special effects are terrible (they are), but that one of main emotional relationships at the heart of the story is realised through the medium of two stuntmen in not-great gorilla suits nuzzling up to each other in simulation of simian romance. Your mind rebels when it is exposed to this stuff. 'No,' comes the interior monologue, 'no. Even the big bird in The Giant Claw was more convincing than this. I object. I am on strike from this point on.' With your suspension of disbelief in full revolt, you are forced to watch the rest of the movie simply in 'how much worse can this possibly get?' mode. And the answer is: considerably. To be honest it's only the sheer badness of the movie that keeps it interesting; anything remotely competent is also rather dull. I don't think the 1976 version of King Kong is nearly as bad as most people say; it certainly looks like a classic compared to this.
Isabel Smith (34 KP) rated Here We Lie in Books
Jun 24, 2018
Two Worlds Collide
Megan Mazeros and Lauren Mabrey are polar opposites. While Megan comes from a middle-class family in Kansas, Lauren hails from a wealthy Connecticut-based family. While Megan’s father slowly succumbed to mesothelioma which he referred to as the poor man’s cancer, Lauren’s father is a well-liked U.S. Senator with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. While Megan has to use her father’s life insurance money to pay for tuition and housing at Keale College (a prestigious, private, and all-girls school), Lauren is given a continual allowance that gets her through her college years with utmost ease. When they meet during their freshman year at Keale College, they unexpectedly become the best of friends. Sharing clothes, secrets, roommates, ambitions, and more, the pair goes through many ups and downs in their friendship during the following years. But one fateful night while they’re vacationing with Lauren's family on an island off the coast of Maine, something terrible happens to Megan and their friendship is irreparably damaged afterwards.
Told in an alternating first-person perspective between Megan and Lauren, Here We Lie is a powerful and relevant story about friendship, betrayal, political scandal, and abuse. I enjoyed everything about it, from the back-and-forth jumps between past and present to the incredible growth of both the main characters. The narrative is fast-paced and compelling, and the ending is beautiful and inspiring. With the rise of the #MeToo movement in the present-day world, Paula Treick DeBoard’s incredibly timely latest novel is sure to spark plenty of conversation about sexual abuse victims and perpetrators, motivation for reform and accountability, and at the very least food for thought.
Told in an alternating first-person perspective between Megan and Lauren, Here We Lie is a powerful and relevant story about friendship, betrayal, political scandal, and abuse. I enjoyed everything about it, from the back-and-forth jumps between past and present to the incredible growth of both the main characters. The narrative is fast-paced and compelling, and the ending is beautiful and inspiring. With the rise of the #MeToo movement in the present-day world, Paula Treick DeBoard’s incredibly timely latest novel is sure to spark plenty of conversation about sexual abuse victims and perpetrators, motivation for reform and accountability, and at the very least food for thought.
Kevin Wilson (179 KP) rated 1313: Giant Killer Bees (2010) in Movies
Jul 14, 2018
Horrible acting (2 more)
Weird props (I'll get into it)
Looooooong scenes and establishing shots
So bad it's good?
This is a horrible movie but it's 1 of those movies that are so bad it's actually good? Good is a strong word though, it's funny to pick out scenes to laugh at.
It starts with a scene where a guy gets dropped off by a car and then walks for 15 minutes to a house which goes on and on (could have easily been dropped off at the house) I can tell this movie is going to be exhausting.
The director, David decoteau returns to the same house he uses in every one of his movies. Same furniture, same props. It's almost a running gag now.
The props they use are weird. There is a beehive someone is attending to is just a bunch of office boxes while the guy is wearing what looks like one of those white outfits that painters and forensic scientists wear.
The CGI on the bees is horrible and the acting is terrible. It's easy to laugh at but you find yourself feeling exhausted when they spend 20 minutes showing a guy rubbing his body on a bed (it's like 5 minutes with the same moves repeating) and a 10-15 minute shower scene.
You cringe and you can't wait for it to end but grab some popcorn, get some friends over and just laugh at this because I did have fun watching despite how boring it is. It was mostly all out if confusion tbh lol
I'd still recommend giving it a try just for a laugh. I still don't know the exact plot, I don't know any of the characters names, I don't know what's happening half the time but as long as you laugh, it's worth it.
It starts with a scene where a guy gets dropped off by a car and then walks for 15 minutes to a house which goes on and on (could have easily been dropped off at the house) I can tell this movie is going to be exhausting.
The director, David decoteau returns to the same house he uses in every one of his movies. Same furniture, same props. It's almost a running gag now.
The props they use are weird. There is a beehive someone is attending to is just a bunch of office boxes while the guy is wearing what looks like one of those white outfits that painters and forensic scientists wear.
The CGI on the bees is horrible and the acting is terrible. It's easy to laugh at but you find yourself feeling exhausted when they spend 20 minutes showing a guy rubbing his body on a bed (it's like 5 minutes with the same moves repeating) and a 10-15 minute shower scene.
You cringe and you can't wait for it to end but grab some popcorn, get some friends over and just laugh at this because I did have fun watching despite how boring it is. It was mostly all out if confusion tbh lol
I'd still recommend giving it a try just for a laugh. I still don't know the exact plot, I don't know any of the characters names, I don't know what's happening half the time but as long as you laugh, it's worth it.
Steve Fearon (84 KP) rated Thir13en Ghosts (2001) in Movies
Sep 5, 2018
The ghosts aren't the only thing that we can see through...
Contains spoilers, click to show
As part of a 'rewatching films from the 90's and 2000's' theme that me and the missus are going through at the moment, we came to a film i remembered fairly fondly, the remake of Thirteen Ghosts!
Unlike a lot of films from this period, this wasn't as terrible to rewatch as some, though it still reeks of some of the tropes of that period, including the casting of Shannon Elizabeth, the evil uncle and the corporate Lawyer baddie as well as the kids that can't help but run towards trouble at every opportunity.
Lets be honest, this film isn't really a scary one, it has some nice creepy elements, but it is largely a safe horror entry for people that shy away from the more intense/gory side of the genre.
Matthew Lillard chews all the scenery he can, and is largely very entertaining as a psychic with powers that they touch on without really explaining, but thats ok, its not the sort of film where it matters all that much.
Better than some, worse than others, this is a film for a rainy sunday evening, where it doesn't matter too much if you talk over the miles and miles of exposition, and where you can happily pull apart the plot holes and confusing character motives to your hearts content.
Unlike a lot of films from this period, this wasn't as terrible to rewatch as some, though it still reeks of some of the tropes of that period, including the casting of Shannon Elizabeth, the evil uncle and the corporate Lawyer baddie as well as the kids that can't help but run towards trouble at every opportunity.
Lets be honest, this film isn't really a scary one, it has some nice creepy elements, but it is largely a safe horror entry for people that shy away from the more intense/gory side of the genre.
Matthew Lillard chews all the scenery he can, and is largely very entertaining as a psychic with powers that they touch on without really explaining, but thats ok, its not the sort of film where it matters all that much.
Better than some, worse than others, this is a film for a rainy sunday evening, where it doesn't matter too much if you talk over the miles and miles of exposition, and where you can happily pull apart the plot holes and confusing character motives to your hearts content.
Sheridan (209 KP) rated Minecraft in Video Games
Sep 11, 2018
Create your own world (2 more)
Relaxing and fun
Lots of Mods to expand your play
Bought for my daughter, played by me.
I told my partner time and time again, we shouldn't buy this game, because it doesn't end and I'll play it all the time lol I wasn't wrong. I really do adore this game it's a lot of fun, especially in Survival Mode. There's so much to explore and the aquatic part is breathtaking. So far I've got two houses and an underwater monument base and I don't see it stopping there. I will eventually build a house in each biome, I think. The terrible graphics holds its own nostalgic charm for me and it's mostly easy to play. Brewing and Enchanting is a lot of work and there are so many steps I feel like I've always got to have Google open on my phone to figure out how to do it. Using experience points to mend and enchant is super annoying because the more advanced your item the most xp points you use to fix it. I currently have an awesome iron pick with several good enchantments on it but I can't use it because otherwise it will break and it costs 33 xp to fix. Another annoying point that gets me is some things that are drops are useless to the player (magma rock, zombie flesh for example) it would be nice to have some use for these items at some point. My 8 yr old can only play in creative mode or on peaceful in survival otherwise she continuously dies and gets super frustrated with it so unless your kids are seasoned xbox gamers I probably wouldn't start them on this. Personally, apart from a few annoying features I love the game. It's creative, relaxing and fun.
A provocative, timely, stonking good read!
Such a thought provoking, insightful book! This novel looks at the possibility of two women having a baby using a groundbreaking medical discovery - two ovums, no sperm. Of course there's an outcry. Religious-types, mens rights activists and bigots in general make their opinions publicly known. Jules and Rosie, the two main characters, try to stay out of the limelight. Jules is a reporter at a local Portsmouth newspaper, so knows how the system works, but when the story is leaked to the newspapers, along with their identities, she is sure that her policy of 'no comment' will work. The media doesn't get bored though, and her workplace aren't in any way supportive. They want the story as much as anyone else.
This could have been a terrible book, but it really wasn't. The subject matter was sensitively dealt with, the relationship between Jules and Rosie wasn't sensationalised, reactions, both good and bad, were realistic. This book is coming out during interesting times globally, where women are calling out bad male behaviour. I can see this being a route that a lot of women would take given the opportunity, whether they were gay or straight - and male fertility is taking a nose dive at the moment, too! So perhaps this would be a real solution (if some clever scientist could get it to work!).
By the way, I lived and taught in a high school in Petersfield on the edge of Leigh Park in the mid to late 1990's, and I think she has the essence of the place just right. It's not an easy place to live and grow up in.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Dialogue Books for my copy of this book
This could have been a terrible book, but it really wasn't. The subject matter was sensitively dealt with, the relationship between Jules and Rosie wasn't sensationalised, reactions, both good and bad, were realistic. This book is coming out during interesting times globally, where women are calling out bad male behaviour. I can see this being a route that a lot of women would take given the opportunity, whether they were gay or straight - and male fertility is taking a nose dive at the moment, too! So perhaps this would be a real solution (if some clever scientist could get it to work!).
By the way, I lived and taught in a high school in Petersfield on the edge of Leigh Park in the mid to late 1990's, and I think she has the essence of the place just right. It's not an easy place to live and grow up in.
Many thanks to NetGalley and Dialogue Books for my copy of this book
Sarah (7799 KP) rated A Simple Favor in Books
Oct 9, 2018
Ridiculous, irritating and quite dull
This is one of the few books I’ve read after watching the film, and one where I think the film is actually better (if not by much!).
Firstly, the film and the book follow vaguely similar plots although with a few minor differences but a massively different ending. For me, the differences don’t really have much effect on my feelings towards the book, although I do think the book ending is terrible and whilst not as far fetched as the film ending, it is still completely implausible. The whole plot really is just a bit silly and doesn’t make much sense. The other major issue with this book is that all characters are completely unlikeable. Stephanie was irritating in the film but is even more so in the book, mainly because the writing style used in her blog posts is so basic, childish and annoying. Emily however was fairly charismatic in the film and likeable to a point, but in this none of her charm comes through. And Sean is entirely forgettable in the book and you don’t feel any emotions towards him whatsoever.
The biggest issue I had with this book is the use of the word “moms”. I apologise profusely to my fellow Smashbombers hailing from the USA, but I cannot stand the word “moms” - both in spelling and pronunciation. And not only is this word used a lot in this book, it is vastly overused to the point where it was making me cringe. I know that Stephanie as a character is meant to make you cringe, but for me this was just far too much to the point where I almost stopped reading. A book that makes you grind your teeth in frustration is not one I’d recommend reading.
Firstly, the film and the book follow vaguely similar plots although with a few minor differences but a massively different ending. For me, the differences don’t really have much effect on my feelings towards the book, although I do think the book ending is terrible and whilst not as far fetched as the film ending, it is still completely implausible. The whole plot really is just a bit silly and doesn’t make much sense. The other major issue with this book is that all characters are completely unlikeable. Stephanie was irritating in the film but is even more so in the book, mainly because the writing style used in her blog posts is so basic, childish and annoying. Emily however was fairly charismatic in the film and likeable to a point, but in this none of her charm comes through. And Sean is entirely forgettable in the book and you don’t feel any emotions towards him whatsoever.
The biggest issue I had with this book is the use of the word “moms”. I apologise profusely to my fellow Smashbombers hailing from the USA, but I cannot stand the word “moms” - both in spelling and pronunciation. And not only is this word used a lot in this book, it is vastly overused to the point where it was making me cringe. I know that Stephanie as a character is meant to make you cringe, but for me this was just far too much to the point where I almost stopped reading. A book that makes you grind your teeth in frustration is not one I’d recommend reading.
ClareR (5758 KP) rated Not That Bad: Dispatches from Rape Culture in Books
Nov 23, 2018
This is an important book.
This is such an important book. Most of the contributions are from women who have experienced sexual assault, but there are contributions from men, and trans women as well. Some are terrible, life changing stories, some are stories of numerous occurrences that chip away at the writers self confidence and feelings of safety. Actually, the upshot is that a vast majority of women do not feel safe anymore.
As I began reading this, I thought that I was one of the lucky that had never experienced any of these things, but as I read on, I realised that I actually had. I think that the cat-calling, touching and looks are something that we don't so much expect as that we are just used to them. The fact that in my younger years I was very outspoken and told someone who touched me to keep their hands to themselves, or told a commenter to keep their mouths shut, probably meant that I was more lucky than effective when they backed down or apologised. And I also think that British culture was very different 20 years ago, as was I.
What saddens me, is that the people who should really read this probably won't. And if they do, they'll probably brush it off as women who exaggerate or are out to attack men, are men haters. But these are all genuine experiences. This isn't fiction. It's heart breaking, raw and something that shouldn't have any place in our modern world. I've never understood the need of some people to control, manipulate and hurt others, but I think I'm probably naive. Or hopeful, perhaps. Somehow, we need to stop this cycle of abuse and hurt, and until then, stories like this will continue.
As I began reading this, I thought that I was one of the lucky that had never experienced any of these things, but as I read on, I realised that I actually had. I think that the cat-calling, touching and looks are something that we don't so much expect as that we are just used to them. The fact that in my younger years I was very outspoken and told someone who touched me to keep their hands to themselves, or told a commenter to keep their mouths shut, probably meant that I was more lucky than effective when they backed down or apologised. And I also think that British culture was very different 20 years ago, as was I.
What saddens me, is that the people who should really read this probably won't. And if they do, they'll probably brush it off as women who exaggerate or are out to attack men, are men haters. But these are all genuine experiences. This isn't fiction. It's heart breaking, raw and something that shouldn't have any place in our modern world. I've never understood the need of some people to control, manipulate and hurt others, but I think I'm probably naive. Or hopeful, perhaps. Somehow, we need to stop this cycle of abuse and hurt, and until then, stories like this will continue.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Sylvia Scarlett (1935) in Movies
Jan 4, 2019
Surprised it Wasn't Better
I was hoping my first review of 2019 would be for a quality film, but you can’t win ‘em all. Sylvia Scarlett is awful and that is putting it nicely. The plot: a young woman pretends to be a boy to travel with her con artist father and trick people into giving them money.
Acting: 4
Beginning: 2
Characters: 7
On paper the characters aren’t horrible even if the acting is shoddy. A woman, pretending to be a young boy. A con artist. A pair of jewel smugglers. Together, they’re an interesting group. It’s a wonder the storyline wasn’t more intriguing. Although there is a wide variety of characters they’re pretty flat for the most part making it hard to get emotionally invested.
Cinematography/Visuals: 2
Conflict: 7
Genre: 7
As hard as this movie was to watch at times, I’ve seen worse. I try to have a bit of leniency for older films because they don’t have half the knowledge we have now when it comes to movies. Today’s films have no excuses to be terrible yet they still are. Not saying director George Cukor is completely devoid of blame, but I’m willing to cut a bit of slack here.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 2
Plot: 0
Resolution: 6
Expected and a bit predictable, but at the very least it fit with the overall storyline. It didn’t enhance the film in anyway, but it also didn’t do any further damage.
Overall: 44
Sylvia Scarlett was pretty painful to sit through. I felt like I was being kidnapped because the movie spent most of its time trying to force me to feel something that just wasn’t there. It surprises me that a movie with Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant was such a dud. Like I said, you can’t win ‘em all.
Acting: 4
Beginning: 2
Characters: 7
On paper the characters aren’t horrible even if the acting is shoddy. A woman, pretending to be a young boy. A con artist. A pair of jewel smugglers. Together, they’re an interesting group. It’s a wonder the storyline wasn’t more intriguing. Although there is a wide variety of characters they’re pretty flat for the most part making it hard to get emotionally invested.
Cinematography/Visuals: 2
Conflict: 7
Genre: 7
As hard as this movie was to watch at times, I’ve seen worse. I try to have a bit of leniency for older films because they don’t have half the knowledge we have now when it comes to movies. Today’s films have no excuses to be terrible yet they still are. Not saying director George Cukor is completely devoid of blame, but I’m willing to cut a bit of slack here.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 2
Plot: 0
Resolution: 6
Expected and a bit predictable, but at the very least it fit with the overall storyline. It didn’t enhance the film in anyway, but it also didn’t do any further damage.
Overall: 44
Sylvia Scarlett was pretty painful to sit through. I felt like I was being kidnapped because the movie spent most of its time trying to force me to feel something that just wasn’t there. It surprises me that a movie with Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant was such a dud. Like I said, you can’t win ‘em all.
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2019 (Updated Jan 22, 2019)
A huge disappointment
This is one of the films I've been dying to see ever since it was announced, and I'm afraid to say it was a massive disappointment after the brilliant Split.
There is such a thing as overkill in sequels, and sadly Glass is full of it. It starts off fairly well, but then dips into sheer boredom as soon as they enter the psychiatric hospital. It does pick up when Mr Glass finally emerges towards the end, but sadly by then most of the damage is done. I hated that they went down the cliched predictable and overused mechanism of a psychiatrist trying to disprove something that everyone else knows is true. Admittedly without saying too much this does at least tie into the ending & it does make sense, but sitting through an hour of dull scenes before we finally get to the fun parts had me nearly falling asleep.
The ending and twists themselves were for the most part predictable and a little bit silly and over the top. Although in a way the final ending was rather fitting. Some of the cinematography was terrible, there were some very bad camera angles and some awful scenes that looked like they'd been shot by a go pro. James McAvoy excels in every scene he's in as expected, it's just a shame that even he couldn't turn this around. The rest of the cast were pretty unremarkable although it was nice to see the original son back from Unbreakable.
I'm very much a less is more kind of person when it comes to stories and films, and sadly Glass tries to elaborate on stories from Unbreakable and Split that didn't need enhancing in the first place.
There is such a thing as overkill in sequels, and sadly Glass is full of it. It starts off fairly well, but then dips into sheer boredom as soon as they enter the psychiatric hospital. It does pick up when Mr Glass finally emerges towards the end, but sadly by then most of the damage is done. I hated that they went down the cliched predictable and overused mechanism of a psychiatrist trying to disprove something that everyone else knows is true. Admittedly without saying too much this does at least tie into the ending & it does make sense, but sitting through an hour of dull scenes before we finally get to the fun parts had me nearly falling asleep.
The ending and twists themselves were for the most part predictable and a little bit silly and over the top. Although in a way the final ending was rather fitting. Some of the cinematography was terrible, there were some very bad camera angles and some awful scenes that looked like they'd been shot by a go pro. James McAvoy excels in every scene he's in as expected, it's just a shame that even he couldn't turn this around. The rest of the cast were pretty unremarkable although it was nice to see the original son back from Unbreakable.
I'm very much a less is more kind of person when it comes to stories and films, and sadly Glass tries to elaborate on stories from Unbreakable and Split that didn't need enhancing in the first place.
