Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) rated The Stand in TV
Feb 10, 2021
I've never written a full review before as I let my score tell the story for the film/TV show in my view and don't like to influence people by what I write, simply put watch it and make your own judgement but with this steaming pile of crap I've had to do this just to get the anger and loathing off my chest.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Death to 2020 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
The annual event of Charlie Brooker’s Yearly Wipe is the one piece of satire I have been sure not to miss over the years. But 2020 has been a bit different, and finding himself in lockdown like everyone else, Brooker re-imagines the format into a full on talking-heads mockumentary that does away with himself as host in favour of a cross Atlantic vibe and a narration from the bass tones of Laurence Fishburne, no less.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
Steve Fearon (84 KP) rated Lake Placid (1999) in Movies
Sep 5, 2018
The Toothless Croc Adventure that bit off more than it could chew
If you are big horror fan, like I am, then you will no doubt have seen and loved Jaws at some point.
The spectacular fear of something huge and unseen in the water, a perfectly evolved marine predator capable of tremendous power and speed, with a jaw size capable of cutting you in half.
Jaws hit on a very primal fear, that there is an unreasoning, prehistoric simplicity to the shark, that reminds us that until the last few thousand years, we were just another form of food for many creatures on this planet, and that we could be again, in the right circumstances.
It is this fear that also informs our love of Zombie movies, our disgust at cannibals and keeps us watching endless episodes of dirty, tired-looking people arguing in 'The Walking Dead'.
Where Jaws created a whole genre of horror in 'Killer Shark' movies, their reptilian counterparts have had to make do with a somewhat less successful series of outings, with Alligator, Croc etc
They just haven't quite hit our imagination in the same way, whether that be because of their comical waddle on land, or having watched an excited Australian man jumping all over them on TV (RIP Steve Irwin)...
Regardless, Lake Placid is the one that most remember from recent history, and having listened to a 'Horrow Show' Podcast on the film recently, I mentioned to my better half I wouldn't mind seeing it again, to see if it is as bad as it sounded.
Well last night, said better half suggested we watch it and boy oh boy...
So first off, Brendan Gleeson was by far the best thing about this movie, his one liners and grumpy demeanor were, for long periods, the best thing about this movie, shortly followed by the hilarious Betty White.
Stan Winstone, legendary physical creature effects maestro turns in some great stuff, and when they are dealing withe the physical creature, it is very effective but all too often they resort to CGI, which is passable but still tends to take you out of the moment..
Oliver Platt's casting as a crocodile expert playboy is amusing at first, then confusing and eventually just...well not laughable exactly as it isnt very funny, but strange certainly.
The movie languishes for long periods, focusing on the incredibly inert chemistry between leading lady Fonda, and wooden cardboard cut out Pullman, giving you poorly written rom com scripts where we signed up to see a giant Croc eat people.
Long story short, this movie is light on tension and action, heavy on clumsy exposition and strange casting choices, and it a poor relation to Jaws, which is more worthy of your time.
The spectacular fear of something huge and unseen in the water, a perfectly evolved marine predator capable of tremendous power and speed, with a jaw size capable of cutting you in half.
Jaws hit on a very primal fear, that there is an unreasoning, prehistoric simplicity to the shark, that reminds us that until the last few thousand years, we were just another form of food for many creatures on this planet, and that we could be again, in the right circumstances.
It is this fear that also informs our love of Zombie movies, our disgust at cannibals and keeps us watching endless episodes of dirty, tired-looking people arguing in 'The Walking Dead'.
Where Jaws created a whole genre of horror in 'Killer Shark' movies, their reptilian counterparts have had to make do with a somewhat less successful series of outings, with Alligator, Croc etc
They just haven't quite hit our imagination in the same way, whether that be because of their comical waddle on land, or having watched an excited Australian man jumping all over them on TV (RIP Steve Irwin)...
Regardless, Lake Placid is the one that most remember from recent history, and having listened to a 'Horrow Show' Podcast on the film recently, I mentioned to my better half I wouldn't mind seeing it again, to see if it is as bad as it sounded.
Well last night, said better half suggested we watch it and boy oh boy...
So first off, Brendan Gleeson was by far the best thing about this movie, his one liners and grumpy demeanor were, for long periods, the best thing about this movie, shortly followed by the hilarious Betty White.
Stan Winstone, legendary physical creature effects maestro turns in some great stuff, and when they are dealing withe the physical creature, it is very effective but all too often they resort to CGI, which is passable but still tends to take you out of the moment..
Oliver Platt's casting as a crocodile expert playboy is amusing at first, then confusing and eventually just...well not laughable exactly as it isnt very funny, but strange certainly.
The movie languishes for long periods, focusing on the incredibly inert chemistry between leading lady Fonda, and wooden cardboard cut out Pullman, giving you poorly written rom com scripts where we signed up to see a giant Croc eat people.
Long story short, this movie is light on tension and action, heavy on clumsy exposition and strange casting choices, and it a poor relation to Jaws, which is more worthy of your time.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Detective Pikachu is the long awaited live action movie of the beloved video game and animated tv show franchise. The video game has sold over 1.31 billion units, so this movie has a very established fan base that is excited for new content, but also critical when new product doesn’t meet their expectations.
Video game movies in general are typically VERY bad. So bad that any time I hear they are making a movie out of a video game I immediately cringe out of reflex. I’ve been permanently scarred by the likes of Tekken, Super Mario Bros and Mortal Kombat. When Tomb Raider is your benchmark for the best of the best you have reason to be afraid when they say that Detective Pikachu is coming to theaters.
But fear not! This movie is not perfect but it does entertain!
Detective Pikachu is played by the voice of Ryan Reynolds, which in case you didn’t know Pokemon typically do not talk, so this is unusual right off the bat. Pokemon basically just repeat their name over and over again with different voice inflections in order to convey mood or urgency. It’s not as annoying as it sounds; it’s typically adorable actually. Reynolds does an excellent PG impersonation of Deadpool as Pikachu in a comedic role as detective Pikachu and it works surprisingly well. His comic timing is so perfect and the jokes don’t come off as childish or boorish, it really flows and works perfectly in the movie.
Justice Smith plays the lead character role of Tim Goodman who is trying to solve the murder of his estranged father. Justice Smith is very likable and you root for him to beat the bad guy and get the girl (played by Kathryn Newton), which is all you really need in a summer action movie; you need to want the hero or heroine to win. Justice Smith does a great job and I could see them building a franchise around his character going forward.
The visuals are fantastic! Its great seeing the characters from the video game walking around full size like that on the big screen and they did not just do a few, the movie is crawling with them and I loved that.
The story is fairly standard and does follow a formula but it moves along at a good pace and at 1 hour and 44 minutes long it feels like it’s not too long or too short. There are jokes that only the adults will get, there are game characters that only hardcore fans will recognize, but this movie was made for as wide an audience as a video game movie could be. They were trying to make it accessible to all, and I think they accomplished that.
It’s a big budget buddy cop popcorn movie with a lot of action, some laughs, a very light and fluffy kid friendly side love story and great special effects. There was a plot hole or two but it was forgivable and too entertaining to ruin it. I highly recommend turning off your brain, grabbing some popcorn and just enjoying this movie. Not perfect, but very good and fun!
Video game movies in general are typically VERY bad. So bad that any time I hear they are making a movie out of a video game I immediately cringe out of reflex. I’ve been permanently scarred by the likes of Tekken, Super Mario Bros and Mortal Kombat. When Tomb Raider is your benchmark for the best of the best you have reason to be afraid when they say that Detective Pikachu is coming to theaters.
But fear not! This movie is not perfect but it does entertain!
Detective Pikachu is played by the voice of Ryan Reynolds, which in case you didn’t know Pokemon typically do not talk, so this is unusual right off the bat. Pokemon basically just repeat their name over and over again with different voice inflections in order to convey mood or urgency. It’s not as annoying as it sounds; it’s typically adorable actually. Reynolds does an excellent PG impersonation of Deadpool as Pikachu in a comedic role as detective Pikachu and it works surprisingly well. His comic timing is so perfect and the jokes don’t come off as childish or boorish, it really flows and works perfectly in the movie.
Justice Smith plays the lead character role of Tim Goodman who is trying to solve the murder of his estranged father. Justice Smith is very likable and you root for him to beat the bad guy and get the girl (played by Kathryn Newton), which is all you really need in a summer action movie; you need to want the hero or heroine to win. Justice Smith does a great job and I could see them building a franchise around his character going forward.
The visuals are fantastic! Its great seeing the characters from the video game walking around full size like that on the big screen and they did not just do a few, the movie is crawling with them and I loved that.
The story is fairly standard and does follow a formula but it moves along at a good pace and at 1 hour and 44 minutes long it feels like it’s not too long or too short. There are jokes that only the adults will get, there are game characters that only hardcore fans will recognize, but this movie was made for as wide an audience as a video game movie could be. They were trying to make it accessible to all, and I think they accomplished that.
It’s a big budget buddy cop popcorn movie with a lot of action, some laughs, a very light and fluffy kid friendly side love story and great special effects. There was a plot hole or two but it was forgivable and too entertaining to ruin it. I highly recommend turning off your brain, grabbing some popcorn and just enjoying this movie. Not perfect, but very good and fun!
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Still Star-Crossed in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Once upon a time I read <em>Romeo and Juliet</em> for English.
It was awful and boring, and I hated it with a passion. I don't know why, but <em>Romeo and Juliet</em> just didn't clash well with me.
<em>Still Star-Crossed</em> isn't exactly like Shakespeare's <em>Romeo and Juliet</em> - definitely not a retelling, though I would read a retelling of the cheese any day over rereading the original. <em>Still Star-Crossed</em> is like <strong>an unwritten sequel - the aftermath of what happens in Shakespeare's Verona after the tragic ending of Romeo and Juliet</strong>. The Capulets and Montagues are in a truce of sorts, but despite the public image, a tension remains between the two families and they're back to their feuds within weeks in the dark of the night. Hoping to diminish the feud altogether, the prince of Verona - Escalus - selects Benvolio (Montague) to marry Rosaline (Capulet).
<strong>Benvolio and Rosaline are an interesting pair to put together</strong> - they're complete opposites of their cousins. Both of them would probably prefer marriage to a literal snake than a forced marriage to each other, and in the hopes to break off the marriage, the two of them try to ease the heavy tensions lurking over the city.
But Benvolio and Rosaline are <strong>so much more entertaining to read about</strong>.
<blockquote>
<h3 style="text-align: center;"><b>THE BETROTHAL: A NUTSHELL</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: left;"><b>Escalus:</b> In order to bring peace to the two families and to Verona, I have decided the Montagues and Capulets will be united through marriage.
<p style="text-align: left;"><b>Rosaline:</b> DUDE. PEACE? I slapped that Montague not too long ago.
<p style="text-align: left;"><b>Benvolio:</b> About an hour ago, in fact.
<p style="text-align: left;"><b>Rosaline:</b> That's five minutes of knowing each other. Imagine a lifetime!
<p style="text-align: left;"><b>Benvolio:</b> A complete life of misery.
<p style="text-align: center;"><i>Pause.</i>
<b>Benvolio: </b>Then again, I guess my misery is yours to command, Your Grace.</blockquote>
They're not hopelessly romantic like their cousins with cheese lined around them! In fact, Benvolio and Rosaline hate being around each other. They only tromp around Veronas streets behind their families backs in the hopes to figure out who is behind trying to start up the feud between their families once more. At the exact same time, Rosaline starts becoming more distant from her sister Livia, and in a way, <strong><em>Still Star-Crossed</em> becomes a tale of a sisterly feud as well</strong>.
I think the only problem I really had with <em>Still Star-Crossed</em> is wanting to slap Escalus upside the head a few times for being figuratively blind. (Also, this is becoming a TV show. SOON. YES PLEASE.)
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-still-star-crossed-by-melinda-taub/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
It was awful and boring, and I hated it with a passion. I don't know why, but <em>Romeo and Juliet</em> just didn't clash well with me.
<em>Still Star-Crossed</em> isn't exactly like Shakespeare's <em>Romeo and Juliet</em> - definitely not a retelling, though I would read a retelling of the cheese any day over rereading the original. <em>Still Star-Crossed</em> is like <strong>an unwritten sequel - the aftermath of what happens in Shakespeare's Verona after the tragic ending of Romeo and Juliet</strong>. The Capulets and Montagues are in a truce of sorts, but despite the public image, a tension remains between the two families and they're back to their feuds within weeks in the dark of the night. Hoping to diminish the feud altogether, the prince of Verona - Escalus - selects Benvolio (Montague) to marry Rosaline (Capulet).
<strong>Benvolio and Rosaline are an interesting pair to put together</strong> - they're complete opposites of their cousins. Both of them would probably prefer marriage to a literal snake than a forced marriage to each other, and in the hopes to break off the marriage, the two of them try to ease the heavy tensions lurking over the city.
But Benvolio and Rosaline are <strong>so much more entertaining to read about</strong>.
<blockquote>
<h3 style="text-align: center;"><b>THE BETROTHAL: A NUTSHELL</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: left;"><b>Escalus:</b> In order to bring peace to the two families and to Verona, I have decided the Montagues and Capulets will be united through marriage.
<p style="text-align: left;"><b>Rosaline:</b> DUDE. PEACE? I slapped that Montague not too long ago.
<p style="text-align: left;"><b>Benvolio:</b> About an hour ago, in fact.
<p style="text-align: left;"><b>Rosaline:</b> That's five minutes of knowing each other. Imagine a lifetime!
<p style="text-align: left;"><b>Benvolio:</b> A complete life of misery.
<p style="text-align: center;"><i>Pause.</i>
<b>Benvolio: </b>Then again, I guess my misery is yours to command, Your Grace.</blockquote>
They're not hopelessly romantic like their cousins with cheese lined around them! In fact, Benvolio and Rosaline hate being around each other. They only tromp around Veronas streets behind their families backs in the hopes to figure out who is behind trying to start up the feud between their families once more. At the exact same time, Rosaline starts becoming more distant from her sister Livia, and in a way, <strong><em>Still Star-Crossed</em> becomes a tale of a sisterly feud as well</strong>.
I think the only problem I really had with <em>Still Star-Crossed</em> is wanting to slap Escalus upside the head a few times for being figuratively blind. (Also, this is becoming a TV show. SOON. YES PLEASE.)
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-still-star-crossed-by-melinda-taub/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Honey-Don't List in Books
Mar 26, 2020
Carey Douglas is looking forward to a much-needed vacation. She's spent nearly ten years serving as an assistant--and much more--to Melissa Tripp, one half of Melissa and Rusty Tripp. The Tripps are co-owners of the store Comb+Honey and best known for their home renovation TV shows and books. They have a new solo show, Home Sweet Home, about to launch on Netflix, accompanied by a book about their happy marriage. The only issue: Melissa and Rusty can't stand each other. So instead of giving their assistants--Carey and Rusty's assistant/engineer, James--a break while they go on book tour, the couple's behavior requires they be babysat so their mutual self-hatred does not go viral. Suddenly Carey and James find themselves stuck together on a tour bus, watching over two very irritable and often hateful people. James needs the engineering contacts and a job where everything is on the up-and-up--something his last couldn't offer. Carey requires health insurance and believes Melissa needs her more than anyone else. And who knows, the more time James and Carey spend together, the more they might wind up finding some good in all this mess.
"You wouldn't know from scrolling through their idyllic Instagram feed that Melly and Rusty aren't quite as sweet on each other anymore. Looking back, I'm not really sure when they decided their marriage mattered less than their brand."
This was a fun and engaging Christina Lauren read. I'd rank Carey and James as one of their good couples, though not perhaps in the great category. They are cute, however, with plenty of chemistry and lots of sexy banter.
"Your only job for the next ten days is to keep the Tripps from falling apart."
I enjoyed the HGTV feel of this book and the Tripps had a "Chip and Joanna Gaines" feel, if the Gaines went off the rails, or we were able to see their dark side. Things get a little repetitive in the middle, as the Tripps fight and Carey and James struggle with the "oh but we need our jobs" piece, but overall the book is humorous, tender, and fun. Sure, Carey and James are desperately thrown together and you have NO IDEA what will happen, right? It's all good; it's why I love a good romance. Their journey is enjoyable and the side characters--mainly the Tripps--are, well, a trip. Let me tell you, Melissa (Melly) is downright scary at times.
We also get the story told from both Carey and James' point of view, which I like, plus some police report excerpts (oh yeah) and parts of blogger and tabloid pieces. Our fabulous duo does a great job at putting us in the middle of the Tripps' scandal, and one of my favorite things about this one was that not only did we get to enjoy Carey and James' romance, but we felt like we were a part of the trainwreck sensation that was Melly and Rusty.
Overall, this is a fun read with a sexy romance and enjoyable characters. 3.75 stars, rounded to 4 stars here.
"You wouldn't know from scrolling through their idyllic Instagram feed that Melly and Rusty aren't quite as sweet on each other anymore. Looking back, I'm not really sure when they decided their marriage mattered less than their brand."
This was a fun and engaging Christina Lauren read. I'd rank Carey and James as one of their good couples, though not perhaps in the great category. They are cute, however, with plenty of chemistry and lots of sexy banter.
"Your only job for the next ten days is to keep the Tripps from falling apart."
I enjoyed the HGTV feel of this book and the Tripps had a "Chip and Joanna Gaines" feel, if the Gaines went off the rails, or we were able to see their dark side. Things get a little repetitive in the middle, as the Tripps fight and Carey and James struggle with the "oh but we need our jobs" piece, but overall the book is humorous, tender, and fun. Sure, Carey and James are desperately thrown together and you have NO IDEA what will happen, right? It's all good; it's why I love a good romance. Their journey is enjoyable and the side characters--mainly the Tripps--are, well, a trip. Let me tell you, Melissa (Melly) is downright scary at times.
We also get the story told from both Carey and James' point of view, which I like, plus some police report excerpts (oh yeah) and parts of blogger and tabloid pieces. Our fabulous duo does a great job at putting us in the middle of the Tripps' scandal, and one of my favorite things about this one was that not only did we get to enjoy Carey and James' romance, but we felt like we were a part of the trainwreck sensation that was Melly and Rusty.
Overall, this is a fun read with a sexy romance and enjoyable characters. 3.75 stars, rounded to 4 stars here.
Blaze and the Monster Machines Dinosaur Rescue HD
Education and Games
App
Get ready to rescue baby dinosaurs with Blaze and AJ in Blaze’s Dinosaur Egg Rescue Game for iPad!...
The Adventures of the Three Little Pigs
Book and Entertainment
App
The interactive story for kids about the Three Little Pigs and the Big Bad Wolf. No adverts, no...
Lee (2222 KP) Jul 20, 2019
Andy K (10821 KP) Jul 20, 2019