Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Eggsy (Taron Egerton) is back in action for the ultra-secret Kingsman in the new film “Kingsman: The Golden Cirlce”. The film opens with a fantastic action and chase sequence through the London streets and shows a franticly paced mix of action and humor.
The film then shifts into setup mode and the next hour or so is very light on action and instead focuses on Eggsy and Merlin (Mark Strong), dealing with a devastating attack on the Kingsman from a drug dealer called Poppy (Julianne Moore), who runs her empire with a ruthless and manic style from a 50s themed lair complete with robotic guards and a retro diner and theater.
Poppy runs an organization called The Golden Circle and she has unleashed a devastating plague on the world in an attempt to force the U.S. President to legalize all drugs which would allow her unlimited power and money to further her global agenda.
With their ranks depleted, Eggsy and Merlin head to the states to enlist the help if their U.S. counterparts, the Statesman who while at first reluctant, soon accept the two into their confidence and plan a mission to end the threat Poppy presents once and for all.
Of course complications arise for Eggsy such as his girlfriend and her parents as well as the revelation that Harry (Colin Firth) is alive but suffering amnesia and thus having no memory of his past life and skills in the service of the Kingsman.
One would think that with this setup and cast including the arrivals of Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges, and Halle Berry, the film would be a slam dunk to surpass the original. Sadly this is not the case. Writer/Director Matthew Vaughn has opted for a film that has a very large gap of it related to setup and exposition. The film opens and concludes with a nice action sequence, but there is really not much in between to get the adrenaline rush going. The original film had the fantastic church sequence that became one of the most talked about moments of the film and sadly the sequel offers nothing nearly as memorable.
The other issue is that the villain is not nearly as memorable nor interesting as Samuel L. Jackson was to say nothing of his sword footed henchman from the original.
There are some amusing moments in the film but It seems that the new cast was not used to their full potential and that the large gaps of the film that lacked any action was a real setback especially with how well the film opened.
In the end the film is an enjoyable but flawed effort that fails to live up to the original but does manage to offer some decent entertainment for those who set realistic expectations.
http://sknr.net/2017/09/20/kingsman-golden-circle/
The film then shifts into setup mode and the next hour or so is very light on action and instead focuses on Eggsy and Merlin (Mark Strong), dealing with a devastating attack on the Kingsman from a drug dealer called Poppy (Julianne Moore), who runs her empire with a ruthless and manic style from a 50s themed lair complete with robotic guards and a retro diner and theater.
Poppy runs an organization called The Golden Circle and she has unleashed a devastating plague on the world in an attempt to force the U.S. President to legalize all drugs which would allow her unlimited power and money to further her global agenda.
With their ranks depleted, Eggsy and Merlin head to the states to enlist the help if their U.S. counterparts, the Statesman who while at first reluctant, soon accept the two into their confidence and plan a mission to end the threat Poppy presents once and for all.
Of course complications arise for Eggsy such as his girlfriend and her parents as well as the revelation that Harry (Colin Firth) is alive but suffering amnesia and thus having no memory of his past life and skills in the service of the Kingsman.
One would think that with this setup and cast including the arrivals of Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges, and Halle Berry, the film would be a slam dunk to surpass the original. Sadly this is not the case. Writer/Director Matthew Vaughn has opted for a film that has a very large gap of it related to setup and exposition. The film opens and concludes with a nice action sequence, but there is really not much in between to get the adrenaline rush going. The original film had the fantastic church sequence that became one of the most talked about moments of the film and sadly the sequel offers nothing nearly as memorable.
The other issue is that the villain is not nearly as memorable nor interesting as Samuel L. Jackson was to say nothing of his sword footed henchman from the original.
There are some amusing moments in the film but It seems that the new cast was not used to their full potential and that the large gaps of the film that lacked any action was a real setback especially with how well the film opened.
In the end the film is an enjoyable but flawed effort that fails to live up to the original but does manage to offer some decent entertainment for those who set realistic expectations.
http://sknr.net/2017/09/20/kingsman-golden-circle/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Snowden (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
As with every Oliver Stone movie, you have to consider context while watching it. Snowden is a persuasive essay attempting to turn the focus from the crime committed by Edward Snowden to the mass surveillance practices of the US government during the Bush and Obama administration. This story was huge when the leaks began hitting the internet and so I was very familiar with the story through the media coverage ensued. Through that coverage it was made to seem as though Snowden, a low level contractor, stole data and was putting it on the internet to spite the American government.
Later more information came forth that he wasn’t as low level as we were led to believe and that Snowden was claiming that he performed the illegal act out of love for his country, not out of spite to harm it. But for a large portion of the country the original story has already been burned into their brain and nothing short of Ronald Reagan descending from heaven to tell them otherwise will change that. A few months ago Donald Trump even called for Snowden’s execution, if that helps paint a picture of the mindset of a portion of the US population about Edward Snowden.
This movie was made to convince you otherwise, that Snowden was and still is a brave American hero. It tells the story beginning with his Special Forces training and takes you all the way through the incident and up to present day, with the actual infamous Edward Snowden closing out the movie. I won’t go into too much detail here because I hate when reviews ruin a movie but I will say that it covers the whole story right down to the Ocean Eleven’s esque way that he got the files out of secured US spy facility.
This movie surprisingly also weaves a love story in and out of the technical background of the data release and while I enjoyed that aspect of the movie, some of it made me question its authenticity… it wasn’t realistic at times how the two reacted to different problems that arose in their relationship.
I left the movie thinking how strange it was that the espionage was the most believable part of the movie and the love story seemed contrived.
Joseph Gorden-Levitt was awesome. I’ve watched enough Snowden videos to know that he nailed it. The love interest was cute and likeable, but the primary antagonist was a bit over the top for a movie based on reality. But I guess that’s what this movie was trying to tell me… that there are some seriously evil people working for our government.
The pacing was good, acting was great, subject matter was insanely interesting and the love story humanized the hacker/criminal/hero. Go see it with an open mind, consider the context with which the film was created and come to your own conclusion. Snowden… hero or villain?
Later more information came forth that he wasn’t as low level as we were led to believe and that Snowden was claiming that he performed the illegal act out of love for his country, not out of spite to harm it. But for a large portion of the country the original story has already been burned into their brain and nothing short of Ronald Reagan descending from heaven to tell them otherwise will change that. A few months ago Donald Trump even called for Snowden’s execution, if that helps paint a picture of the mindset of a portion of the US population about Edward Snowden.
This movie was made to convince you otherwise, that Snowden was and still is a brave American hero. It tells the story beginning with his Special Forces training and takes you all the way through the incident and up to present day, with the actual infamous Edward Snowden closing out the movie. I won’t go into too much detail here because I hate when reviews ruin a movie but I will say that it covers the whole story right down to the Ocean Eleven’s esque way that he got the files out of secured US spy facility.
This movie surprisingly also weaves a love story in and out of the technical background of the data release and while I enjoyed that aspect of the movie, some of it made me question its authenticity… it wasn’t realistic at times how the two reacted to different problems that arose in their relationship.
I left the movie thinking how strange it was that the espionage was the most believable part of the movie and the love story seemed contrived.
Joseph Gorden-Levitt was awesome. I’ve watched enough Snowden videos to know that he nailed it. The love interest was cute and likeable, but the primary antagonist was a bit over the top for a movie based on reality. But I guess that’s what this movie was trying to tell me… that there are some seriously evil people working for our government.
The pacing was good, acting was great, subject matter was insanely interesting and the love story humanized the hacker/criminal/hero. Go see it with an open mind, consider the context with which the film was created and come to your own conclusion. Snowden… hero or villain?
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Prince of Fools in Books
Nov 25, 2019
Mark Lawrence's previous Broken Empire trilogy was a terrific read, starring as it did an almost perfect anti-hero in shape of Jorg Ancrath, a character who in any other books would have been the major villain.
It was hard to see where Lawrence could go from there. The answer is 'up'. Set in the same world as Broken Empire the events in Prince of Fools take place at roughly the same time as those of Prince of Thorns but following someone who is manipulated by a different set of players than Jorg.
Prince Jalan is the grandson of the Red Queen. He is too far from the throne to have to think seriously about ruling but close enough that he can rely on his rank to provide him a life of luxury - and to get him out of trouble if needs be. He is indolent, self-centered and vain and spends his time either drinking, gambling or trying to bed various women. He describes himself at the start of the book as 'A liar, a cheat and a coward' and he certainly always tries to take the easy path through anything and avoid any actual work or responsibilities.
But things are about to change. He ends up being forced to leave the comforts of court and city life and travel with a companion he doesn't care for on a quest he has no interest in. But he follows along, complaining all the way and plotting on ways to return to the life of leisure and pleasure that he craves.
Whereas Jorg's general reaction to someone in his way is to kill them, Jalan will wheedle, plead or just plain bribe them to get what he wants and on the rare occasions he has to wield a sword he is so shockingly incompetent he is actually dangerous.
The story is excellent; there is a definite impetus and personal reason for the quest and a final showdown in which a terrible truth is revealed. More of the fate of the Broken Empire is revealed as Jalan and his companion travel across it, as well as more of the geography. Jalan's dislike for travel is clear and the descriptions are coloured by his perceptions - it's always too wet or too cold or too flat or too mountainous.
There are some terrific scenes with Lawrence's black humour very much to the fore as in the previous books. There are meetings with characters from the previous trilogy that are like meeting old friends (and yes Jorg and Jalan do cross storylines at a crucial point for both of them).
I would absolutely recommend this book to anyone looking for a great story with absorbing characters, laugh out loud humour and great battle scenes. If you liked Jorg read this book. If you like zombies read this book. If you like vikings read this book. Actually, just read the book. You won't regret it.
It was hard to see where Lawrence could go from there. The answer is 'up'. Set in the same world as Broken Empire the events in Prince of Fools take place at roughly the same time as those of Prince of Thorns but following someone who is manipulated by a different set of players than Jorg.
Prince Jalan is the grandson of the Red Queen. He is too far from the throne to have to think seriously about ruling but close enough that he can rely on his rank to provide him a life of luxury - and to get him out of trouble if needs be. He is indolent, self-centered and vain and spends his time either drinking, gambling or trying to bed various women. He describes himself at the start of the book as 'A liar, a cheat and a coward' and he certainly always tries to take the easy path through anything and avoid any actual work or responsibilities.
But things are about to change. He ends up being forced to leave the comforts of court and city life and travel with a companion he doesn't care for on a quest he has no interest in. But he follows along, complaining all the way and plotting on ways to return to the life of leisure and pleasure that he craves.
Whereas Jorg's general reaction to someone in his way is to kill them, Jalan will wheedle, plead or just plain bribe them to get what he wants and on the rare occasions he has to wield a sword he is so shockingly incompetent he is actually dangerous.
The story is excellent; there is a definite impetus and personal reason for the quest and a final showdown in which a terrible truth is revealed. More of the fate of the Broken Empire is revealed as Jalan and his companion travel across it, as well as more of the geography. Jalan's dislike for travel is clear and the descriptions are coloured by his perceptions - it's always too wet or too cold or too flat or too mountainous.
There are some terrific scenes with Lawrence's black humour very much to the fore as in the previous books. There are meetings with characters from the previous trilogy that are like meeting old friends (and yes Jorg and Jalan do cross storylines at a crucial point for both of them).
I would absolutely recommend this book to anyone looking for a great story with absorbing characters, laugh out loud humour and great battle scenes. If you liked Jorg read this book. If you like zombies read this book. If you like vikings read this book. Actually, just read the book. You won't regret it.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Independent Study (The Testing, #2) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I personally think <em><a title="The Testing review" href="http://www.bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-testing-by-joelle-charbonneau"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Testing</a></em> was better than <em>Independent Study</em>. The second book in Charbonneau's <em>Testing</em> trilogy is quite literally another testing with higher chances of survival, significantly less paper tests, and an induction to their major. It's really just more testing and then some more.
Malencia (Cia) Vale begins to realize failing isn't allowed, because failing means inevitable fate (but of course, that's been drilled since the first book – this time it's more along the lines of, "So much for relief. I still can't fail or I'm toast.") that she really doesn't want to find out. With the inability to remember to her Testing aside from what she recorded and beginning to question the University's selection process, Cia tries to find ways to take down the Testing peacefully without an all out "let's take down the entire government" rebellion.
At this point in the series, I'm not exactly a huge fan of the overly brilliant main character of the series. I adore Cia's brilliance, and while I think this might actually be Charbonneau's motive (because the series is based off the ACT/SAT), I feel Cia's been over-brillianted – Is that a word? No? I don't care. It is in this sense. – in the series. Cia is basically the only one excelling compared to the rest of her classmates – the average number of classes is six, Cia gets a whopping nine (and that's not counting internships). It's like Cia is set apart deliberately and from all of her classmates, which, of course, would no doubt attract the attention of Villain Squad (yes, <em>squad</em>).
Okay, I don't mind brilliant characters. It means more cruising for me and less of calling the character shallow, innocent, naïve, stupid – anything along those lines. Except...
Cia is a little whiny in <em>Independent Study</em>. She <em>wants</em> to take down the Testing and stop a rebellion, but at the same time, she doesn't want to (mainly because she doesn't want to get caught – she's already sticking out like a weed in a pretty flower garden). She's beginning to rely on Tomas a little too much – "I need to know Tomas's thoughts, I need his advice, I need his opinion on this...."
I don't like it. Even if I completely understand why Cia would do so in a place where every move and word is monitored and tracked by a group of people who can end lives within any reason.
I intend to read <em>Graduation Day</em> for the purposes of closure.
Maybe then I'll have a better understanding of Cia's excelled brilliance and a better understanding of why Cia is becoming reliant on Tomas (aside from the fact they grew up together in the same colony).
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-independent-study-by-joelle-charbonneau/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Malencia (Cia) Vale begins to realize failing isn't allowed, because failing means inevitable fate (but of course, that's been drilled since the first book – this time it's more along the lines of, "So much for relief. I still can't fail or I'm toast.") that she really doesn't want to find out. With the inability to remember to her Testing aside from what she recorded and beginning to question the University's selection process, Cia tries to find ways to take down the Testing peacefully without an all out "let's take down the entire government" rebellion.
At this point in the series, I'm not exactly a huge fan of the overly brilliant main character of the series. I adore Cia's brilliance, and while I think this might actually be Charbonneau's motive (because the series is based off the ACT/SAT), I feel Cia's been over-brillianted – Is that a word? No? I don't care. It is in this sense. – in the series. Cia is basically the only one excelling compared to the rest of her classmates – the average number of classes is six, Cia gets a whopping nine (and that's not counting internships). It's like Cia is set apart deliberately and from all of her classmates, which, of course, would no doubt attract the attention of Villain Squad (yes, <em>squad</em>).
Okay, I don't mind brilliant characters. It means more cruising for me and less of calling the character shallow, innocent, naïve, stupid – anything along those lines. Except...
Cia is a little whiny in <em>Independent Study</em>. She <em>wants</em> to take down the Testing and stop a rebellion, but at the same time, she doesn't want to (mainly because she doesn't want to get caught – she's already sticking out like a weed in a pretty flower garden). She's beginning to rely on Tomas a little too much – "I need to know Tomas's thoughts, I need his advice, I need his opinion on this...."
I don't like it. Even if I completely understand why Cia would do so in a place where every move and word is monitored and tracked by a group of people who can end lives within any reason.
I intend to read <em>Graduation Day</em> for the purposes of closure.
Maybe then I'll have a better understanding of Cia's excelled brilliance and a better understanding of why Cia is becoming reliant on Tomas (aside from the fact they grew up together in the same colony).
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-independent-study-by-joelle-charbonneau/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Paranormalcy (Paranormalcy #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Review posted on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2012/12/review-paranormalcy-by-kiersten-white.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>.
I'll be honest here: I just adore Evie's personality. And her habit of "bleep" when swearing which she picked up from her watery friend, Lish (such a sad ending for her. Dx *tears up again*). I'll probably face it. I kinda got the bleep habit as well after reading it, LOL. Not that I swear much myself. I kinda use it for fun sometimes when it's appropriate (Read: Really Fun Word to Use When Right).
Did it make a lasting impression? Well...
In the majority of cases, yep, it certainly did. In the meaning of "Will-I-read-it-again-and-again-so-I-can-visit-again" type of thing, it would be an eh... I guess we'll have to see. There's this great perk about the Paranormal genre, but I thought in Paranormalcy's case, it wasn't a lot as I expected it, but overall, it was pretty good.
The title is really catchy and makes you think a bit on what it really means. Though I don't really see how it's related in a way to the story. Maybe it'll come to me later. I hope. (That's right. I still haven't figured it out, XD) Same for the cover in a way. Although... I guess I can. The story is related to Evie after all. I'm assuming the girl on the cover is Evie. No guarantees of being right. I'm just guessing. (And guessing is never wrong. Is it? O_O)
How about the others then? I can't really detect the villains though. There seems to be a few, of which I shall not name for the sake of spoilers. Plus, they're not that scary. I was thinking some creep that would try and steal your soul to live like the villain from Silver Phoenix (read it BEFORE Bookwyrming Thoughts was born, so no review anywhere.) And I despise Reth. Can't you see Evie wants no business with you whatsoever? Dx I guess faeries aren't always smart as mentioned probably in the book already.
But oy, what makes me give it an epic rating of 4.25? Okay, not a 4.25 then. A 4. Not dealing with graphics again... even though I enjoy doing it at times. :) What really makes me give it a high rating and not a "in-the-middle-due-to-a-bit-of-lack-of-action-because-I'm-also-drawn-to-action-and-adventure-books-mixed-in-with-other-genres" type of rating is White's writing style. I just love it. It's light-hearted, kind of care-free, humorous, and cute mixed with awesome-ness and totally fun voice.
Will I read the next book? Yep. Just please keep up the awesomous style. I just adore it (Read: LOVEEE it!). :3
I'll be honest here: I just adore Evie's personality. And her habit of "bleep" when swearing which she picked up from her watery friend, Lish (such a sad ending for her. Dx *tears up again*). I'll probably face it. I kinda got the bleep habit as well after reading it, LOL. Not that I swear much myself. I kinda use it for fun sometimes when it's appropriate (Read: Really Fun Word to Use When Right).
Did it make a lasting impression? Well...
In the majority of cases, yep, it certainly did. In the meaning of "Will-I-read-it-again-and-again-so-I-can-visit-again" type of thing, it would be an eh... I guess we'll have to see. There's this great perk about the Paranormal genre, but I thought in Paranormalcy's case, it wasn't a lot as I expected it, but overall, it was pretty good.
The title is really catchy and makes you think a bit on what it really means. Though I don't really see how it's related in a way to the story. Maybe it'll come to me later. I hope. (That's right. I still haven't figured it out, XD) Same for the cover in a way. Although... I guess I can. The story is related to Evie after all. I'm assuming the girl on the cover is Evie. No guarantees of being right. I'm just guessing. (And guessing is never wrong. Is it? O_O)
How about the others then? I can't really detect the villains though. There seems to be a few, of which I shall not name for the sake of spoilers. Plus, they're not that scary. I was thinking some creep that would try and steal your soul to live like the villain from Silver Phoenix (read it BEFORE Bookwyrming Thoughts was born, so no review anywhere.) And I despise Reth. Can't you see Evie wants no business with you whatsoever? Dx I guess faeries aren't always smart as mentioned probably in the book already.
But oy, what makes me give it an epic rating of 4.25? Okay, not a 4.25 then. A 4. Not dealing with graphics again... even though I enjoy doing it at times. :) What really makes me give it a high rating and not a "in-the-middle-due-to-a-bit-of-lack-of-action-because-I'm-also-drawn-to-action-and-adventure-books-mixed-in-with-other-genres" type of rating is White's writing style. I just love it. It's light-hearted, kind of care-free, humorous, and cute mixed with awesome-ness and totally fun voice.
Will I read the next book? Yep. Just please keep up the awesomous style. I just adore it (Read: LOVEEE it!). :3
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Power Rangers (2017) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
About 85% of this reboot of the popular 90s show Power Rangers is quite a broody and charming enough story about a group of five (mostly outcast) teenagers finding a bond and friendship after discovering that they've be given superpowers. This is spliced with the odd training montage of them all learning how to harness their new found powers.
It pretty straightforward, and thanks the main cast, it's fairly enjoyable.
Lead by Jason (Stranger Things' Dacre Montgomery), the five friends are probably the main positive about the film.
As the movie draws on, we are teased with just enough Power Rangers material to keep the intrigue afloat - the presence of Zordon (Bryan Cranston), Alpha 5 (Bill Hader) and Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks), glimpses of the Zords and so on, but the narrative never strays too far from this core theme of strength through friendship.
That is until the final act of course...
I'll admit that I felt a swelling of excitement when the Power Rangers finally appeared in full armour, kicking the shit out of faceless CGI henchman, but it's at this point that director Dean Israelite goes FULL POWER RANGERS. We even get the classic theme tune as the Rangers charge towards Goldar (eye burning CGI, but kind of cool) and Rita in their Zords (also kind of cool) but here in lies the main problem with the film as a whole.
The nostalgia is laid on so thick that it feels like a completely different film. With the first 3/4 being somewhat grounded in realism (sort of), with serious themes and relatable human characters, the final act of flat out Power Rangers absurdity doesn't quite gel. I have no problem with either approach, but I feel like maybe the writers should have picked one and stuck with it.
The well developed teenagers that we've spent and hour and half with at this point are suddenly wise cracking and quipping like there's no tomorrow. The big climatic battle looks ok, but it has that really overplayed Kanye West song obnoxiously blasting throughout (which just gave me *shudder* Suicide Squad vibes), and after being built up to be a genuinely threatening villain, Rita is easily dispatched by a big CGI bitchslap into CGI space, by the big CGI hand of the big CGI Megazord (still kind of cool).
It's just a little meh.
I have fond memories of Power Rangers from my childhood, and I realise that this modern retelling is also aimed at a younger audience, and in that respect I'm sure it's very entertaining, and I give credit to the writers for touching upon more adult issues, but overall, I wish it had been better. Power Rangers is silly, but it does genuinely have scope to be an epic franchise.
Final note - the running Krispy Kreme joke got old very quickly 🖕
It pretty straightforward, and thanks the main cast, it's fairly enjoyable.
Lead by Jason (Stranger Things' Dacre Montgomery), the five friends are probably the main positive about the film.
As the movie draws on, we are teased with just enough Power Rangers material to keep the intrigue afloat - the presence of Zordon (Bryan Cranston), Alpha 5 (Bill Hader) and Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks), glimpses of the Zords and so on, but the narrative never strays too far from this core theme of strength through friendship.
That is until the final act of course...
I'll admit that I felt a swelling of excitement when the Power Rangers finally appeared in full armour, kicking the shit out of faceless CGI henchman, but it's at this point that director Dean Israelite goes FULL POWER RANGERS. We even get the classic theme tune as the Rangers charge towards Goldar (eye burning CGI, but kind of cool) and Rita in their Zords (also kind of cool) but here in lies the main problem with the film as a whole.
The nostalgia is laid on so thick that it feels like a completely different film. With the first 3/4 being somewhat grounded in realism (sort of), with serious themes and relatable human characters, the final act of flat out Power Rangers absurdity doesn't quite gel. I have no problem with either approach, but I feel like maybe the writers should have picked one and stuck with it.
The well developed teenagers that we've spent and hour and half with at this point are suddenly wise cracking and quipping like there's no tomorrow. The big climatic battle looks ok, but it has that really overplayed Kanye West song obnoxiously blasting throughout (which just gave me *shudder* Suicide Squad vibes), and after being built up to be a genuinely threatening villain, Rita is easily dispatched by a big CGI bitchslap into CGI space, by the big CGI hand of the big CGI Megazord (still kind of cool).
It's just a little meh.
I have fond memories of Power Rangers from my childhood, and I realise that this modern retelling is also aimed at a younger audience, and in that respect I'm sure it's very entertaining, and I give credit to the writers for touching upon more adult issues, but overall, I wish it had been better. Power Rangers is silly, but it does genuinely have scope to be an epic franchise.
Final note - the running Krispy Kreme joke got old very quickly 🖕
JT (287 KP) rated The Hunt (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
The Hunt is a gripping yet dramatic look at the persecution of one man in a small Danish town, after he is accused of sexually assaulting a young girl.
With such subject matter being so delicate it needed a careful approach as its something that is so true to life it can resonate with peoples moral views in quite a significant way. Lucas (Mikkelsen) is a nursery teacher, quiet and reclusive he lives alone trying to come to terms with the fact that he is not able to see his son as much as he would like to.
Lucas clearly has a fond affection for the children that he looks after, but his life is torn apart one day by a small white lie that sets the wheels in motion for a real life witch hunt.
The film is hard to watch at times and rightly so, it’s dealing with something that occurs in the real world and it can be stomach churning. But director Thomas Vinterberg gets to the heart of the matter quickly and in such a way that it creates compelling interest.
Former Bond villain and TV Hannibal star Mikkelsen is an exceptional centre piece as a loving father desperate for a way out, and in such a small environment it seems to be a hard task to accomplish. It’s at times like this that you know who your real friends are, and Lucas comes to realise that in the harshest of circumstances as he is slowly but surely chased down by a hunting pack of townsfolk.
How apt it is that Mikkelsen seen hunting deer in the forest at the start, now knows himself what that feeling is like as the hunter now becomes the hunted. It’s a film that genuinely makes you angry, your emotions are pulled one way and then the next as you try to put yourself in the shoes of a number of different people, but at the end of the day it comes down to one thing, guilty until proven innocent.
At the start we’re quite sure that Lucas is innocent, but there is enough in the narrative that at times we question ourselves in what is a slow burning story executed with the highest precision. The supporting cast are all brilliant, and do themselves credit to subject matter that must be hard to act against, especially when there are children involved.
People will do evil things when pushed to the limit by what they feel is right or wrong as the case maybe, and its a journey that Vinterberg takes us on in horrifying consequences.
The Hunt expels emotions such as paranoia, guilt and suspicion, all in a community bonded closely by long lasting friendships they have with each other. The closing scene proves that even after time has passed some things are gone but certainly not forgotten.
With such subject matter being so delicate it needed a careful approach as its something that is so true to life it can resonate with peoples moral views in quite a significant way. Lucas (Mikkelsen) is a nursery teacher, quiet and reclusive he lives alone trying to come to terms with the fact that he is not able to see his son as much as he would like to.
Lucas clearly has a fond affection for the children that he looks after, but his life is torn apart one day by a small white lie that sets the wheels in motion for a real life witch hunt.
The film is hard to watch at times and rightly so, it’s dealing with something that occurs in the real world and it can be stomach churning. But director Thomas Vinterberg gets to the heart of the matter quickly and in such a way that it creates compelling interest.
Former Bond villain and TV Hannibal star Mikkelsen is an exceptional centre piece as a loving father desperate for a way out, and in such a small environment it seems to be a hard task to accomplish. It’s at times like this that you know who your real friends are, and Lucas comes to realise that in the harshest of circumstances as he is slowly but surely chased down by a hunting pack of townsfolk.
How apt it is that Mikkelsen seen hunting deer in the forest at the start, now knows himself what that feeling is like as the hunter now becomes the hunted. It’s a film that genuinely makes you angry, your emotions are pulled one way and then the next as you try to put yourself in the shoes of a number of different people, but at the end of the day it comes down to one thing, guilty until proven innocent.
At the start we’re quite sure that Lucas is innocent, but there is enough in the narrative that at times we question ourselves in what is a slow burning story executed with the highest precision. The supporting cast are all brilliant, and do themselves credit to subject matter that must be hard to act against, especially when there are children involved.
People will do evil things when pushed to the limit by what they feel is right or wrong as the case maybe, and its a journey that Vinterberg takes us on in horrifying consequences.
The Hunt expels emotions such as paranoia, guilt and suspicion, all in a community bonded closely by long lasting friendships they have with each other. The closing scene proves that even after time has passed some things are gone but certainly not forgotten.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Mar 12, 2020
did i speak too soon?
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you've read my other reviews, you know that I'm currently in a Hitchcock film class. I've been dreading watching his films because of the ones I've seen, with the exception of Psycho, have been the same story told in different ways. I was equally as dreadful when it came to watching this film. However, I was pleasantly surprised.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Once You Go This Far in Books
Jul 9, 2020
Probably my favorite book in the series and that's saying *a lot.*
Private investigator Roxane Weary is out for a stroll when another hiker, Rebecca Newsome, falls to her death on a nearby trail. Her daughter, Maggie, doesn't think it was an accident, and she hires Roxane to look into the the incident, believing strongly that Rebecca's ex-husband, Keir, a former cop, was responsible. Roxane learns quickly that Keir is a bit of a jerk, but did he kill his ex? Roxane soon finds herself driving between Detroit and Canada, following the path of Rebecca's last days. Soon she's embroiled in the Fellowship, a mega-church founded by Joel Creedle and talking to Constance Archer, a wealthy businesswoman who is now running for office. Roxane's running herself so ragged she can barely make time for herself, let alone Tom, her sometimes romantic interest. Not to mention, things are heating up in her case, and she may find herself in danger, yet again.
"Only bad things happened when it was cold out, as it was becoming now."
This is one of the best detective serious out there, hands down, and I wish that Kristen Lepionka and Roxane Weary were household names. I adore these books and this one may be my favorite yet, which is high praise, as I've loved every book since the first.
"That was the thing about mysteries--no one ever deviated from the routine until the moment they did."
Roxane is her own person--a witty, intelligent private investigator who, oh yeah, just happens to be bisexual (and not a side character or the villain of our tale). Book four finds her working on a perplexing case, but also dealing with some personal growth: having to confront emotions and relationships, dreaded words in Roxane's world. I loved the balance of the mystery and Roxane's personal life in this one.
"Not knowing was hard for me. It always was."
Reading these books is like falling back with familiar friends--Lepionka captures Roxane and her crew perfectly: her brothers and mom; her on again/off again boyfriend Tom and ex-girlfriend, Catherine; her work partners; and more. She expertly portrays Roxane's wonderful sarcasm and her inability to commit. Here, we see Roxane dealing with a bombshell about her father's past--poor Roxane: she can never quite escape the shadow of her father, a former cop.
But, of course, we also read for the mystery, and this is a great one--Lepionka takes us in the world of an Evangelical church while delving into Rebecca Newsome's past, her relationship with her daughter, Maggie, and the many secrets Roxane uncovers. She also throws in Rebecca's wonderful spunky elderly neighbor who keeps things lively. This was an excellent mystery that kept me guessing (and worrying for Roxane's safety)--it's timely, interesting, and suspenseful.
Highly recommend this book and the entire Roxane Weary series. 4.5 stars.
Private investigator Roxane Weary is out for a stroll when another hiker, Rebecca Newsome, falls to her death on a nearby trail. Her daughter, Maggie, doesn't think it was an accident, and she hires Roxane to look into the the incident, believing strongly that Rebecca's ex-husband, Keir, a former cop, was responsible. Roxane learns quickly that Keir is a bit of a jerk, but did he kill his ex? Roxane soon finds herself driving between Detroit and Canada, following the path of Rebecca's last days. Soon she's embroiled in the Fellowship, a mega-church founded by Joel Creedle and talking to Constance Archer, a wealthy businesswoman who is now running for office. Roxane's running herself so ragged she can barely make time for herself, let alone Tom, her sometimes romantic interest. Not to mention, things are heating up in her case, and she may find herself in danger, yet again.
"Only bad things happened when it was cold out, as it was becoming now."
This is one of the best detective serious out there, hands down, and I wish that Kristen Lepionka and Roxane Weary were household names. I adore these books and this one may be my favorite yet, which is high praise, as I've loved every book since the first.
"That was the thing about mysteries--no one ever deviated from the routine until the moment they did."
Roxane is her own person--a witty, intelligent private investigator who, oh yeah, just happens to be bisexual (and not a side character or the villain of our tale). Book four finds her working on a perplexing case, but also dealing with some personal growth: having to confront emotions and relationships, dreaded words in Roxane's world. I loved the balance of the mystery and Roxane's personal life in this one.
"Not knowing was hard for me. It always was."
Reading these books is like falling back with familiar friends--Lepionka captures Roxane and her crew perfectly: her brothers and mom; her on again/off again boyfriend Tom and ex-girlfriend, Catherine; her work partners; and more. She expertly portrays Roxane's wonderful sarcasm and her inability to commit. Here, we see Roxane dealing with a bombshell about her father's past--poor Roxane: she can never quite escape the shadow of her father, a former cop.
But, of course, we also read for the mystery, and this is a great one--Lepionka takes us in the world of an Evangelical church while delving into Rebecca Newsome's past, her relationship with her daughter, Maggie, and the many secrets Roxane uncovers. She also throws in Rebecca's wonderful spunky elderly neighbor who keeps things lively. This was an excellent mystery that kept me guessing (and worrying for Roxane's safety)--it's timely, interesting, and suspenseful.
Highly recommend this book and the entire Roxane Weary series. 4.5 stars.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Payback (1999) in Movies
Jul 15, 2020
Get Ready To Root For The Bad Guy
Payback- is a intresting revenge action thriller. Maybe its me, but i fell like this movie is boring. Its good, but some what boring, like nothing going on. Also its kinda of confusing, again it might just be me, but i fell like its confusing as well. Like i said before its good, but in the end its both boring and confusing.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.