Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Everybody Wants Some!! (2016) in Movies
Aug 23, 2019
Great Movie About Absolutely Nothing
Everybody Wants Some!! follows the lives of a group of college baseball players at a junior college in their days leading up to preseason training.
Acting: 10
This movie is largely a character piece and it wouldn’t work nearly as well without such great acting performances. There are no weak links here as each performance is memorable in its own way. The acting was so efficient, there were a handful of moments where it almost felt like you were watching a documentary as opposed to a fictional movie.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
No two players are alike in the movie, each of them bringing something different to the table. As the movie progresses from one act to the next, it is pure entertainment watching them react to different scenarios so differently. My favorite character on the team was Finnegan (Glen Powell). Charismatic and ever-changing, I love how he adapts to new situations and always had a go-with-the-flow attitude. Jay Niles cracked me up as well for his ridiculous intensity that you have to see to understand.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You know a movie really gets to you visually when you find yourself saying, “Man, it would’ve been cool to live during that time period.” Everybody Wants Some!! captures the cool, fun feel of the 70’s on all fronts from one scene to the next. While the film doesn’t leave the town where it takes place, you’re entertained with a number of different setpieces that change the dynamic of the movie in their own way.
Conflict: 5
Definitely the weakest part of the movie. Nothing terrible really happens to the characters at the end of the day leaving no room for any kind of worry. It is amazing that the movie still works so well with so little conflict to keep you engaged.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
This movie reminded me of my college days and I’m probably not alone in this. It makes you remember younger days and having zero responsibility. It’s also a movie that doesn’t leave its replay value. Definitely a movie I could watch repeatedly.
Pace: 10
The movie proceeds in definable acts based around parties and it works in a loose structure kind of way. You never really know where the story is going until you get near the end and you realize it’s going absolutely nowhere. But that’s ok because the road to nowhere in this case is extremely fun and memorable.
Plot: 5
Resolution: 10
The movie ends just as chill as it started, very fitting for its overall lackadaisical tone. A little bit of perspective ties things on with a nice little bow before the movie bows out gracefully. Beyond satisfying.
Overall: 90
Everybody Wants Some!! is the perfect Exhibit A case of sometimes less is just more. The film is light-hearted, yet you’ll be having such a good time you’ll probably forget nothing substantial is actually happening. It’s a wonderful film that will give you something new each time you watch it.
Acting: 10
This movie is largely a character piece and it wouldn’t work nearly as well without such great acting performances. There are no weak links here as each performance is memorable in its own way. The acting was so efficient, there were a handful of moments where it almost felt like you were watching a documentary as opposed to a fictional movie.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
No two players are alike in the movie, each of them bringing something different to the table. As the movie progresses from one act to the next, it is pure entertainment watching them react to different scenarios so differently. My favorite character on the team was Finnegan (Glen Powell). Charismatic and ever-changing, I love how he adapts to new situations and always had a go-with-the-flow attitude. Jay Niles cracked me up as well for his ridiculous intensity that you have to see to understand.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You know a movie really gets to you visually when you find yourself saying, “Man, it would’ve been cool to live during that time period.” Everybody Wants Some!! captures the cool, fun feel of the 70’s on all fronts from one scene to the next. While the film doesn’t leave the town where it takes place, you’re entertained with a number of different setpieces that change the dynamic of the movie in their own way.
Conflict: 5
Definitely the weakest part of the movie. Nothing terrible really happens to the characters at the end of the day leaving no room for any kind of worry. It is amazing that the movie still works so well with so little conflict to keep you engaged.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
This movie reminded me of my college days and I’m probably not alone in this. It makes you remember younger days and having zero responsibility. It’s also a movie that doesn’t leave its replay value. Definitely a movie I could watch repeatedly.
Pace: 10
The movie proceeds in definable acts based around parties and it works in a loose structure kind of way. You never really know where the story is going until you get near the end and you realize it’s going absolutely nowhere. But that’s ok because the road to nowhere in this case is extremely fun and memorable.
Plot: 5
Resolution: 10
The movie ends just as chill as it started, very fitting for its overall lackadaisical tone. A little bit of perspective ties things on with a nice little bow before the movie bows out gracefully. Beyond satisfying.
Overall: 90
Everybody Wants Some!! is the perfect Exhibit A case of sometimes less is just more. The film is light-hearted, yet you’ll be having such a good time you’ll probably forget nothing substantial is actually happening. It’s a wonderful film that will give you something new each time you watch it.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) in Movies
Aug 3, 2020
God-Awful
Pretty much separate from all the other movies, when youngster Sean Black goes to Japan to live with his father, he rebels and gets involved in the underground life of street racing. Since I’m on a streak of reviewing god-awful movies, I present to you The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift.
Acting: 5
Beginning: 1
The beginning puts us right in the heart of a cheesy car race. It wasn’t bad, but as I look back over the entirety of the other movies, car races are typically the one thing they get right. So, in comparison, it was actually terrible. Definitely put me in a weird kind of mood for what was to come.
Characters: 8
What the characters lacked in depth, they were at least fun characters to include in the story. If nothing else, at least it’s not Paul Walker! That alone was enough to get my seal of approval.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 5
Sure there is a motive to drive the story. Is it strong? Not really. Enough to carry a movie? It’ll do. The problem with not having characters with depth is having to rely on the action to drive the story. When there’s not enough of it, you’re in trouble.
Entertainment Value: 5
So here’s the thing: The actual drifting part was kind of cool. I also like the fact that they really make an attempt to get you involved in the Japanese world. At one point, I made the note: “I don’t hate this movie.” At some point that did change, but there was a true moment where the movie held its own for a bit.
Memorability: 3
I couldn’t tell you one memorable line from this movie. I couldn’t tell you one cool action sequence that really got me excited. All I really remember is some drifting and some beautiful Tokyo landscapes…and that’s pretty much all in the title. This is not a repeat watch type of movie.
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
The story had potential. My problem was it kept leaving out pockets of information and it never really felt like I got the full story. It was like I kept getting up to go to the bathroom and missing something crucial each time. There is way too much jumping around for my taste.
Resolution: 5
The ending left me with a mild sense of satisfaction. Even if I wasn’t late to the game and I was watching this for the first time when it was first released, I would’ve still known that there would be more movies to come. That’s what nags at me: The lack of completion. It doesn’t feel like an ending when you know it’s not over.
Overall: 52
Some movies are bad but entertaining. Case and point: The Fast and the Furious Tokyo Drift. You will hate it, but you will also walk away having seen a few solid moments as well. As much as I try and avoid this franchise at all costs, there were glimmers in these early movies that the franchise could be more than what it was. Glad they finally found their way.
Acting: 5
Beginning: 1
The beginning puts us right in the heart of a cheesy car race. It wasn’t bad, but as I look back over the entirety of the other movies, car races are typically the one thing they get right. So, in comparison, it was actually terrible. Definitely put me in a weird kind of mood for what was to come.
Characters: 8
What the characters lacked in depth, they were at least fun characters to include in the story. If nothing else, at least it’s not Paul Walker! That alone was enough to get my seal of approval.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 5
Sure there is a motive to drive the story. Is it strong? Not really. Enough to carry a movie? It’ll do. The problem with not having characters with depth is having to rely on the action to drive the story. When there’s not enough of it, you’re in trouble.
Entertainment Value: 5
So here’s the thing: The actual drifting part was kind of cool. I also like the fact that they really make an attempt to get you involved in the Japanese world. At one point, I made the note: “I don’t hate this movie.” At some point that did change, but there was a true moment where the movie held its own for a bit.
Memorability: 3
I couldn’t tell you one memorable line from this movie. I couldn’t tell you one cool action sequence that really got me excited. All I really remember is some drifting and some beautiful Tokyo landscapes…and that’s pretty much all in the title. This is not a repeat watch type of movie.
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
The story had potential. My problem was it kept leaving out pockets of information and it never really felt like I got the full story. It was like I kept getting up to go to the bathroom and missing something crucial each time. There is way too much jumping around for my taste.
Resolution: 5
The ending left me with a mild sense of satisfaction. Even if I wasn’t late to the game and I was watching this for the first time when it was first released, I would’ve still known that there would be more movies to come. That’s what nags at me: The lack of completion. It doesn’t feel like an ending when you know it’s not over.
Overall: 52
Some movies are bad but entertaining. Case and point: The Fast and the Furious Tokyo Drift. You will hate it, but you will also walk away having seen a few solid moments as well. As much as I try and avoid this franchise at all costs, there were glimmers in these early movies that the franchise could be more than what it was. Glad they finally found their way.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Santa Jaws (2018) in Movies
Aug 7, 2020
It really shouldn't have been such a challenge for me to see this film. Nearly two years after its release I finally managed to see it... and spoiler alert for my conclusion... it was fintastic.
Cody makes a Christmas wish to be alone, little does he know that his Christmas present is going to make that wish come true in a very festive and gruesome way.
I very quickly want to get a negative out of the way first. There is very noticeable music playing throughout the film. Now, I'm one of those terrible people that doesn't notice music unless it's brilliantly placed or horrendous, and while this music isn't horrendous it does suffer from being way too familiar. You've got Christmas tunes which work fine but the film has the Home Alone theme/feel about it and I think most people can identify those songs when they pop up anywhere.
This film has a little Inception moment at the beginning and we get a representation of the comic the boys are writing. I'm honestly a little disappointed that we didn't get to see that as a whole film of its own when it brings us the amazing line "See you in jingle hell!" spoken with such heart.
Once we get down to our regular programming it's very easy to sink into the ideas at work, there's nothing over complicated and the characters are easy to place. You get the chance to make predictors/wishes early on for who you want to die, and I was not disappointed... at the same time though I was super angry about Santa Jaws' first kill, BAD SHARK!
The acting isn't bad overall, there are some bits that come across a little cheesy and forced when we keep getting Home Alone-esque pieces thrown in, but at the same time... it's a movie about a Christmas themed shark sooooooo.
I'm not entirely sure that the comic book shop was a necessary inclusion on the whole but I can't argue with the choices the owner made... kudos... I wouldn't have wanted those missed out of the final piece.
Shark movie logic abounds and characters make tremendous leaps in deductions that further the plot. My favourite being about the Christmassy nature of the shark. I don't know how the shark's powers and weaknesses came about it the storyline but, standing ovation to you, I loved it.
I ended up getting an imported shark DVD box set so I could see this, it was definitely worth the effort. (Not the stress of trying to play it, but that's another story.) I can only hope this one hits our screens on SyFy or the Horror Channel, I'm honestly surprised it hasn't already. Santa Jaws is an amusing romp in the creature feature genre, it's a great twist on the classics (shark or Christmas film, take your pick) and for the brave I'm sure you could make a drinking game out of Christmas puns and Home Alone references... though maybe not with anything too strong, you might not make it to the end.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/santa-jaws-movie-review.html
Cody makes a Christmas wish to be alone, little does he know that his Christmas present is going to make that wish come true in a very festive and gruesome way.
I very quickly want to get a negative out of the way first. There is very noticeable music playing throughout the film. Now, I'm one of those terrible people that doesn't notice music unless it's brilliantly placed or horrendous, and while this music isn't horrendous it does suffer from being way too familiar. You've got Christmas tunes which work fine but the film has the Home Alone theme/feel about it and I think most people can identify those songs when they pop up anywhere.
This film has a little Inception moment at the beginning and we get a representation of the comic the boys are writing. I'm honestly a little disappointed that we didn't get to see that as a whole film of its own when it brings us the amazing line "See you in jingle hell!" spoken with such heart.
Once we get down to our regular programming it's very easy to sink into the ideas at work, there's nothing over complicated and the characters are easy to place. You get the chance to make predictors/wishes early on for who you want to die, and I was not disappointed... at the same time though I was super angry about Santa Jaws' first kill, BAD SHARK!
The acting isn't bad overall, there are some bits that come across a little cheesy and forced when we keep getting Home Alone-esque pieces thrown in, but at the same time... it's a movie about a Christmas themed shark sooooooo.
I'm not entirely sure that the comic book shop was a necessary inclusion on the whole but I can't argue with the choices the owner made... kudos... I wouldn't have wanted those missed out of the final piece.
Shark movie logic abounds and characters make tremendous leaps in deductions that further the plot. My favourite being about the Christmassy nature of the shark. I don't know how the shark's powers and weaknesses came about it the storyline but, standing ovation to you, I loved it.
I ended up getting an imported shark DVD box set so I could see this, it was definitely worth the effort. (Not the stress of trying to play it, but that's another story.) I can only hope this one hits our screens on SyFy or the Horror Channel, I'm honestly surprised it hasn't already. Santa Jaws is an amusing romp in the creature feature genre, it's a great twist on the classics (shark or Christmas film, take your pick) and for the brave I'm sure you could make a drinking game out of Christmas puns and Home Alone references... though maybe not with anything too strong, you might not make it to the end.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/santa-jaws-movie-review.html
Lionheart: Dark Moon
Games
App
Pick up and play this brand new mobile RPG with stunning graphics and animation! Build your...
RPGApps BattleApps
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) in Movies
Aug 8, 2022
Phase four of the MCU has been interesting so far to say the least. Some projects have been great, some have been a little uninspired, but in its attempts to set up multiple overarching story threads, it feels a little wayward, especially in comparison to the recently concluded Infinity Saga. Thor: Love & Thunder has unfortunately arrived right in the middle of this new era of uncertainty, and is a film that ultimately feels a little directionless itself. It adapts a hugely beloved comic arc, an arc that could have potentially used two movies to flesh everything out properly. In this arc, Gorr the God Butcher is a big deal, he feels threatening, menacing, dangerous. In the film, Christian Bale is giving it his all, and there are moments when Gorr is genuinely creepy as hell, but the stakes never feel particularly high, resulting in a villain that feels like a shadow of his comic counterpart. Chris Hemsworth has proven by now that he is a perfect fit for Thor himself, but by this fourth entry, it genuinely feels that he is a straight up dumbass, and is miles away from his character growth in the first Thor. Herein lies the main issue I had with Love & Thunder. Ragnarok was a well balanced MCU film in terms of tone. It provided a much needed shakeup after the disappointment of The Dark World, and Taika Waititi was an inspired choice to bring the quirk. The comedy is tight, lands more often than not, whilst boasting some memorable set pieces. L&T takes the comedy aspect, and doubles down hard. It's joke after joke, to a point where a lot of it falls flat. It reminded me of Guardians of the Galaxy 2 in that respect. It's not terrible by any means, but it's balance feels completely off. There are some great set pieces to be fair. An early scene that involves an attack on New Asgard is a highlight, and almost feels like a horror film at times. It's also where we meet Jane Fosters Thor, who looks comic accurate, and is a genuinely great addition to the movie overall. There's another scene later on that takes place in the shadow realm that provides another highlight. It's mostly in black and white, and it feels unique to the MCU. It's one of a few inspired moments that prevent L&T from becoming a complete misfire.
Any other gripes from me would require stepping into spoiler territory so I'll leave it there. Love & Thunder is frequently dumb, but equally fun, colourful and loud, despite being a bit of a mess. The more Marvel Studios venture into Phase Four, the more sporadic and shaky it feels. I have no doubt that everything will plateau into a solid narrative again, I just hope that moment comes sooner, rather than later.
On a final note, the person I watched this with leaned over to me around the halfway point, and said that Thor just sounds like Boris Johnson when he talks, and now I can't unhear it. If I have to suffer, then you do to.
Any other gripes from me would require stepping into spoiler territory so I'll leave it there. Love & Thunder is frequently dumb, but equally fun, colourful and loud, despite being a bit of a mess. The more Marvel Studios venture into Phase Four, the more sporadic and shaky it feels. I have no doubt that everything will plateau into a solid narrative again, I just hope that moment comes sooner, rather than later.
On a final note, the person I watched this with leaned over to me around the halfway point, and said that Thor just sounds like Boris Johnson when he talks, and now I can't unhear it. If I have to suffer, then you do to.
Silver Wood Coven: The Complete Series
10.0
Rate It
Book
What if you had no memory, not even of being a witch? Rescued (Silver Wood Coven #1) Templar...
Adult Paranormal Romance Ménage
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Harshini (25 KP) rated Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters (2013) in Movies
Jan 4, 2018 (Updated Jan 13, 2018)
Annabeth's hair and eye colour matched the books (1 more)
"Stop walking on my roof"
Some scenes that should have been in were cut (4 more)
Some scenes were in that shouldn't have been
Some scenes were in that weren't even a part of the book they were producing
The author of the books hates the movies
The initial scene is of something that is never mentioned in the books - and I'm still kind of confused as to what the actors' characters are meant to be doing
Big Fan of the Books, Not So Much of the Movies
Contains spoilers, click to show
I had a huge issue with the first movie as is, so this may end up being a rant.
I have been a massive fan of the books for about 9 years now and can say with a fair amount of certainty that this movie does not echo its book source. Yes, they had the same characters (for the most part), but the characters being from the book does not mean that it is the movie of the book. It means that the book gave inspiration. Sure, some events that were in the book were in the movie - such as Tyson's slip with the winds, or Tyson's story at all - but some fairly important scenes were not to be seen in the movie - such as (what should have been the initial scene) the dodgeball game that reveals Tyson's immunity to fire, Siren Bay, or Circe. Not to mention the events that were changed in the movie - such as the fact that Polyphemus' island became a fairground instead of a lush paradisal island with man-eating sheep, or that the ship Clarisse is commandeering doesn't end up in Charybdis' stomach and that they avoid the two monsters all together. I'm not even counting the scenes that the director placed in this movie that should have come much later - like Percy's fight with Kronos, which shouldn't have taken place until the absolute last movie. When I saw the first movie, I said something about the way it was made, and I'll say it again: it's like the director hired someone to read the book and tell him what happened, the person read all the books and then decided to pick and choose their favourite parts and create an absolute mess of the books. I mean, it's a sign if the author of said books is the person who hates the movies the most.
That being said, I can attest to there being some good things about the movie. Alexandra Daddario (who plays Annabeth Chase, daughter of Athena) did end up changing her hair and eye colour in the movie to the described blonde hair and grey eyes (though the eyes do look very fake). I am not sure whether or not this was just because so many fans were offended by her brown hair and eyes in the first movie (which was also terrible), but I am glad that it got changed to be more in-tune with the source material. Above all, I can say that there are about five seconds of this movie that I love - and that I will stomach the surrounding minute for - and that is when Luke Castellan tells Percy to 'stop walking on [his] roof'. It is by far the funniest part of the entire movie. However, I won't lie and say I'm not glad that the series isn't going to continue to be shown on the silver screen.
I have been a massive fan of the books for about 9 years now and can say with a fair amount of certainty that this movie does not echo its book source. Yes, they had the same characters (for the most part), but the characters being from the book does not mean that it is the movie of the book. It means that the book gave inspiration. Sure, some events that were in the book were in the movie - such as Tyson's slip with the winds, or Tyson's story at all - but some fairly important scenes were not to be seen in the movie - such as (what should have been the initial scene) the dodgeball game that reveals Tyson's immunity to fire, Siren Bay, or Circe. Not to mention the events that were changed in the movie - such as the fact that Polyphemus' island became a fairground instead of a lush paradisal island with man-eating sheep, or that the ship Clarisse is commandeering doesn't end up in Charybdis' stomach and that they avoid the two monsters all together. I'm not even counting the scenes that the director placed in this movie that should have come much later - like Percy's fight with Kronos, which shouldn't have taken place until the absolute last movie. When I saw the first movie, I said something about the way it was made, and I'll say it again: it's like the director hired someone to read the book and tell him what happened, the person read all the books and then decided to pick and choose their favourite parts and create an absolute mess of the books. I mean, it's a sign if the author of said books is the person who hates the movies the most.
That being said, I can attest to there being some good things about the movie. Alexandra Daddario (who plays Annabeth Chase, daughter of Athena) did end up changing her hair and eye colour in the movie to the described blonde hair and grey eyes (though the eyes do look very fake). I am not sure whether or not this was just because so many fans were offended by her brown hair and eyes in the first movie (which was also terrible), but I am glad that it got changed to be more in-tune with the source material. Above all, I can say that there are about five seconds of this movie that I love - and that I will stomach the surrounding minute for - and that is when Luke Castellan tells Percy to 'stop walking on [his] roof'. It is by far the funniest part of the entire movie. However, I won't lie and say I'm not glad that the series isn't going to continue to be shown on the silver screen.
postapocalypticplayground (27 KP) rated Six of Crows in Books
Jan 9, 2018
Every so often a book will come along which will make you re-evaluate all the 5 star reviews you have given in the past. Six of Crows for me is that book. Set in Leigh Bardugo's "Grishaverse" it is the tale of an impossible heist where the rewards far outweigh the risk. Our main protagonist Kaz Brekker is fast becoming a legend in the bowels of the Barrel, the criminal underworld of Ketterdam. He is young, but a driven and ruthless trickster, with a team to match. They are tasked with breaching the heavily fortified Ice Court to rescue a scientist held hostage. It's a feat which has never been achieved, but with the promise of a reward that will take Kaz and his team out of the bottom of the Barrel it's risk he's willing to take, after all, just how many things could go wrong?
Six of Crows is told in multiple points of view, which can sometimes be confusing for me but there were only a couple of occasions that I found myself flipping back to the start of the chapter to remind myself who in the limelight. I felt that this was a style that worked really well with this story as the main six often found themselves in different places with different tasks and this way of storytelling allowed it all to come seamlessly together. Whilst it does majorly involve the Grisha, I found it was a world that I easily fell into pace with, without having read the Grisha Trilogy first. I'm told there are a number of nods which are present but I never felt lost or like I was missing out.
The characters are fantastic, my favourite by far was Inej, the wraith. Rescued from the oldest profession by Kaz, she is a force to be reckoned with, a silent assassin. There are no walls she can't climb or secrets she can't glean. I felt most for her, what she had been through before joining with Kaz and how it had driven her to become who she now was. I loved the sense of purpose that grew within her throughout the story. The others too though all have their stories to tell, a proper band of misfits all with their secrets and terrible histories that have shaped them. It's hard to remember that they are all teenagers, but then that makes them easier to underestimate.
The audacity behind Kaz's plan is immeasurable and it is through this that I am just in awe of the writing. At just shy of 500 pages there was not a single moment of rest for the reader, I felt on edge every step of the way. I felt fear for these characters, trepidation but also the good humour that only a rag tag bunch of forgotten teenagers could have in the circumstances they faced. I simply did not want to put this down, at all. The last of the six sections I tried to slow down as I knew it was coming to an end but it pulled me in and wouldn't let go. It's rare for a book to leave me breathless, but this one really did. It's the first of a duology and I can't wait for pay day to roll round so I can pick up Crooked Kingdom. If I could give this six stars I would, It's a truly amazing read and If you're a YA fantasy fan you will not be disappointed!
Six of Crows is told in multiple points of view, which can sometimes be confusing for me but there were only a couple of occasions that I found myself flipping back to the start of the chapter to remind myself who in the limelight. I felt that this was a style that worked really well with this story as the main six often found themselves in different places with different tasks and this way of storytelling allowed it all to come seamlessly together. Whilst it does majorly involve the Grisha, I found it was a world that I easily fell into pace with, without having read the Grisha Trilogy first. I'm told there are a number of nods which are present but I never felt lost or like I was missing out.
The characters are fantastic, my favourite by far was Inej, the wraith. Rescued from the oldest profession by Kaz, she is a force to be reckoned with, a silent assassin. There are no walls she can't climb or secrets she can't glean. I felt most for her, what she had been through before joining with Kaz and how it had driven her to become who she now was. I loved the sense of purpose that grew within her throughout the story. The others too though all have their stories to tell, a proper band of misfits all with their secrets and terrible histories that have shaped them. It's hard to remember that they are all teenagers, but then that makes them easier to underestimate.
The audacity behind Kaz's plan is immeasurable and it is through this that I am just in awe of the writing. At just shy of 500 pages there was not a single moment of rest for the reader, I felt on edge every step of the way. I felt fear for these characters, trepidation but also the good humour that only a rag tag bunch of forgotten teenagers could have in the circumstances they faced. I simply did not want to put this down, at all. The last of the six sections I tried to slow down as I knew it was coming to an end but it pulled me in and wouldn't let go. It's rare for a book to leave me breathless, but this one really did. It's the first of a duology and I can't wait for pay day to roll round so I can pick up Crooked Kingdom. If I could give this six stars I would, It's a truly amazing read and If you're a YA fantasy fan you will not be disappointed!
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Visitors in Books
Jan 10, 2018
Creepy character study into very disturbed siblings
Marion Zetland and her brother John live in a decrepit old home near a seaside resort town. They inherited the house from their now deceased parents and neither sibling works, having to worry little about money thanks to their inheritance. Marion--in her 50s--still sleeps with stuffed animals and relies on her mercurial older brother for everything. As for John, he spends a great deal of his days down in the house's cellar--a place Marion never sets foot--tending to his "visitors," who arrive at their home, but then never come out of the cellar again. Marion spends her time puttering about the house and studiously ignoring John's visitors, even while she sees him preparing them meals and when she does their laundry on Mondays. But one day, John winds up in the hospital, and Marion is forced to confront everything she has been avoiding for years.
I was really excited when this book showed up as "read now" on Netgalley, as I'd heard so much about it. It was a really quick read--yet a slow burner, if that makes any sense. The description touts about Marion going into the cellar after John's heart attack, but that doesn't happen until over 75% way in... I kept waiting, waiting, and waiting for that major plot to occur. It seemed like a lot of build up for that event and then a rush of events after. I guess I had expected more creepiness and not as much messed up characters - this novel is far more of a character study than I had expected.
That's not to say it's not good, because it is; it's just not what I was expecting, and it's definitely a slow read that focuses far more on its character development than action. The novel is basically told entirely from Marion's point of view (with just a few snippets of emails from John's visitors). As such, we get an in-depth look at how Marion's childhood formed the person she is--and how it influenced John, as well. We learn about their terrible and neglectful parents. We see how John vacillates between kindness and torture toward his sister. We see how Marion is stuck in some sort of childlike, helpless state thanks to all of this. But, you also can't help but wonder, how truthful is Marion being with us?
All of this information about Marion and John's life and information about the neighbors was great and definitely gave us excellent insight into their character and actions. I still couldn't help but want to know more about the visitors actually living in the basement of this horrible, creepy house and I kept hoping and waiting for more to actually happen. There's a few great "aha" moments, but still.
Overall, as a creepy character study into a very disturbed brother and sister, this book exceeds admirably. I would have hoped for a slightly quicker pace, but oh well. I'd be curious to see what comes next from Catherine Burns. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review.
I was really excited when this book showed up as "read now" on Netgalley, as I'd heard so much about it. It was a really quick read--yet a slow burner, if that makes any sense. The description touts about Marion going into the cellar after John's heart attack, but that doesn't happen until over 75% way in... I kept waiting, waiting, and waiting for that major plot to occur. It seemed like a lot of build up for that event and then a rush of events after. I guess I had expected more creepiness and not as much messed up characters - this novel is far more of a character study than I had expected.
That's not to say it's not good, because it is; it's just not what I was expecting, and it's definitely a slow read that focuses far more on its character development than action. The novel is basically told entirely from Marion's point of view (with just a few snippets of emails from John's visitors). As such, we get an in-depth look at how Marion's childhood formed the person she is--and how it influenced John, as well. We learn about their terrible and neglectful parents. We see how John vacillates between kindness and torture toward his sister. We see how Marion is stuck in some sort of childlike, helpless state thanks to all of this. But, you also can't help but wonder, how truthful is Marion being with us?
All of this information about Marion and John's life and information about the neighbors was great and definitely gave us excellent insight into their character and actions. I still couldn't help but want to know more about the visitors actually living in the basement of this horrible, creepy house and I kept hoping and waiting for more to actually happen. There's a few great "aha" moments, but still.
Overall, as a creepy character study into a very disturbed brother and sister, this book exceeds admirably. I would have hoped for a slightly quicker pace, but oh well. I'd be curious to see what comes next from Catherine Burns. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review.