Search
Search results
Dana (24 KP) rated The Winner's Curse (The Winner's Trilogy, #1) in Books
Mar 23, 2018
This was a very interesting concept for a book series. The nations and the struggle between them was based on the Greco-Roman time period when Rome was conquering most of Europe and the Mediterranean. Many of the ties to both appearance and even some of the cultures of these two rival nations were scattered throughout the first book.
I have got to say, I really enjoyed this book. It was a very quick read, something I appreciate as I am attempting to read 27 books in about two and a half months. The characters were very compelling, especially when I hated them. I obviously loved the two main characters, Kestrel and Arin, Kestrel's best friend, Jess, and her brother, Ronan. Even though I hated Irex (even his name is grating) I was intrigued by him and his motivations behind everything he did.
I loved how Kestrel was such a schemer. A lot of the time in YA books with female protagonists, if she is even slightly good at battle plans, she is passed off as being arrogant or is completely ignored by her male counterparts forcing her to execute her plan behind the scenes and be scolded for the rash behavior afterwards. Not in this book. No, Kestrel is actually praised for her tactical mind, something I think anyone with this skill should get. It was refreshing to see other characters lifting a female character up in her strengths instead of downplaying them, forcing her to use them for their own gain, or taking credit for it themselves. Other males in YA books, take note of this!! (Also, I love how badass she is at Bite and Sting. I want that game to be real and learn how to be just as awesome at it!!)
The relationships between the characters were well developed, but I think they could still use improvement. I wanted to know the motivations behind each of the relationships, especially between Kestrel and Ronan. Yes, he likes her, but why and for how long? And we all know about Irex, but why is he like that? Plus, how did Jess and Kestrel become friends?
I enjoyed how everything played out in the plot and was setting up for the next books without being only about world building and plot set up. It had a life of its own.
Overall, I really liked the book and I can't wait to pick up the next two!
I have got to say, I really enjoyed this book. It was a very quick read, something I appreciate as I am attempting to read 27 books in about two and a half months. The characters were very compelling, especially when I hated them. I obviously loved the two main characters, Kestrel and Arin, Kestrel's best friend, Jess, and her brother, Ronan. Even though I hated Irex (even his name is grating) I was intrigued by him and his motivations behind everything he did.
I loved how Kestrel was such a schemer. A lot of the time in YA books with female protagonists, if she is even slightly good at battle plans, she is passed off as being arrogant or is completely ignored by her male counterparts forcing her to execute her plan behind the scenes and be scolded for the rash behavior afterwards. Not in this book. No, Kestrel is actually praised for her tactical mind, something I think anyone with this skill should get. It was refreshing to see other characters lifting a female character up in her strengths instead of downplaying them, forcing her to use them for their own gain, or taking credit for it themselves. Other males in YA books, take note of this!! (Also, I love how badass she is at Bite and Sting. I want that game to be real and learn how to be just as awesome at it!!)
The relationships between the characters were well developed, but I think they could still use improvement. I wanted to know the motivations behind each of the relationships, especially between Kestrel and Ronan. Yes, he likes her, but why and for how long? And we all know about Irex, but why is he like that? Plus, how did Jess and Kestrel become friends?
I enjoyed how everything played out in the plot and was setting up for the next books without being only about world building and plot set up. It had a life of its own.
Overall, I really liked the book and I can't wait to pick up the next two!
Softer Than You Think
Utterly bonkers attempt at combining an apocalyptic thriller with gritty police procedural; the preposterousness of the plot combined with the fact that it always takes itself Very, Very Seriously results in what's essentially a hilarious unintentional comedy.
So, what's it about? Well, a pair of London coppers (cockney geezer and troubled waif) stumble upon a USB stick containing the government's advance planning for the end of the world, which is due in about five years. Quite what form this planning takes is a little unclear, as it neglects to mention just what form the apocalypse is going to take (which if nothing else allows the show a nice big revelation at the end of the season). Geezer and Waif must try to get the truth out there while fending off government agents who want them dead!
Except, it's not really about that: news of the impending catastrophe, whatever it is, lures various nutters out of the woodwork to start committing grisly murders, and - wouldn't you know it - whenever Geezer and Waif get a spare moment from being hunted by the government, they have to go around catching them By Any Means Necessary! (At one point Geezer contemplates waterboarding an innocent man who's not being cooperative enough.)
Except, it's not just about that, either, for Geezer and Waif have the most implausibly complicated back-stories known to man, involving an extramarital fling, a secure unit, an internal affairs investigation, the murder of Geezer's old partner, a secret deal, and Waif's homicidal grown-up son (who seems to be nearly as old as she is).
All of this stuff bangs together in the most grisly and unlikely fashion, with a general tone of overwrought existential misery (every one of the duo's cases either features a moment where they literally start beating each other up with collapsible truncheons, or one where they sit down together and wail 'What's the point of any of this? We're all going to be dead in five years anyway!').
The sheer ridiculousness of Hard Sun makes it quite watchable in a stick-it-on-in-the-background-while-you're-doing-something else kind of way; every time you find yourself saying 'This can't possibly get any sillier' the show comes right back and proves you wrong. The makers of the show are clearly hoping for a full five year run, counting down to the actual apocalypse itself, although clearly the format is in for a big retool somewhere along the line. Fingers crossed this finds the devoted global audience such a potential cult camp classic deserves.
So, what's it about? Well, a pair of London coppers (cockney geezer and troubled waif) stumble upon a USB stick containing the government's advance planning for the end of the world, which is due in about five years. Quite what form this planning takes is a little unclear, as it neglects to mention just what form the apocalypse is going to take (which if nothing else allows the show a nice big revelation at the end of the season). Geezer and Waif must try to get the truth out there while fending off government agents who want them dead!
Except, it's not really about that: news of the impending catastrophe, whatever it is, lures various nutters out of the woodwork to start committing grisly murders, and - wouldn't you know it - whenever Geezer and Waif get a spare moment from being hunted by the government, they have to go around catching them By Any Means Necessary! (At one point Geezer contemplates waterboarding an innocent man who's not being cooperative enough.)
Except, it's not just about that, either, for Geezer and Waif have the most implausibly complicated back-stories known to man, involving an extramarital fling, a secure unit, an internal affairs investigation, the murder of Geezer's old partner, a secret deal, and Waif's homicidal grown-up son (who seems to be nearly as old as she is).
All of this stuff bangs together in the most grisly and unlikely fashion, with a general tone of overwrought existential misery (every one of the duo's cases either features a moment where they literally start beating each other up with collapsible truncheons, or one where they sit down together and wail 'What's the point of any of this? We're all going to be dead in five years anyway!').
The sheer ridiculousness of Hard Sun makes it quite watchable in a stick-it-on-in-the-background-while-you're-doing-something else kind of way; every time you find yourself saying 'This can't possibly get any sillier' the show comes right back and proves you wrong. The makers of the show are clearly hoping for a full five year run, counting down to the actual apocalypse itself, although clearly the format is in for a big retool somewhere along the line. Fingers crossed this finds the devoted global audience such a potential cult camp classic deserves.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Where Are You Hiding, God? in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Where Are You Hiding, God?</i> is a children’s picture book by the Austrian illustrator Elisabeth Zartl. Originally published in 2013 under the German title <i>Wo versteckst du dich, lieber Gott?</i> it has been translated into English in order to reach a wider audience. Primarily targeted at children of Christian families, the book attempts to explain the concept of God.
The short story begins with an anonymous little girl searching for God in a manner that resembles a game of Hide and Seek. She looks in her bedroom, the bathroom and the garden before giving up in defeat. As she sits desolately alone, a gust of wind and a falling leaf prompt her to realise that God does not have a corporeal body, but is, in fact, everywhere. Exhilarated by her newfound understanding, she exclaims that God was in all the places she looked and that he is inside her, too. God is everywhere.
Aimed at children ages three and over, <i>Where Are You Hiding, God?</i> explores the confusion a child may have in comprehending the idea of God. For a child, knowing something or someone is there but not being able to see them is a difficult idea to grasp. This book, through the demonstration of someone their own age, helps to explain their questions and uncertainties.
Elizabeth Zartl’s illustrations capture the attention of those reading or looking at the pages. Filling each page with a full-colour palette, the drawings are child-friendly but realistic, making it easy to process, and accurately creates a visual narrative of the written words. The language is also suitable for the intended demographic and, although three-year-olds may not be able to read it themselves, they will certainly understand the story.
From a design point of view, the text and illustrations do not quite match up. The full-page artworks make it difficult to place the short sentences in a way that both elements can work together. This, however, is not the fault of the author/illustrator who would have originally been working with a German text.
Overall,<i> Where Are You Hiding, God?</i> is a sweet, short story that can be read to children or grandchildren over and over again. As well as being a source of entertainment, it introduces them to the beliefs they will encounter during their Christian upbringing and prepares them to develop a greater understanding of God.
Where Are You Hiding, God?</i> is a children’s picture book by the Austrian illustrator Elisabeth Zartl. Originally published in 2013 under the German title <i>Wo versteckst du dich, lieber Gott?</i> it has been translated into English in order to reach a wider audience. Primarily targeted at children of Christian families, the book attempts to explain the concept of God.
The short story begins with an anonymous little girl searching for God in a manner that resembles a game of Hide and Seek. She looks in her bedroom, the bathroom and the garden before giving up in defeat. As she sits desolately alone, a gust of wind and a falling leaf prompt her to realise that God does not have a corporeal body, but is, in fact, everywhere. Exhilarated by her newfound understanding, she exclaims that God was in all the places she looked and that he is inside her, too. God is everywhere.
Aimed at children ages three and over, <i>Where Are You Hiding, God?</i> explores the confusion a child may have in comprehending the idea of God. For a child, knowing something or someone is there but not being able to see them is a difficult idea to grasp. This book, through the demonstration of someone their own age, helps to explain their questions and uncertainties.
Elizabeth Zartl’s illustrations capture the attention of those reading or looking at the pages. Filling each page with a full-colour palette, the drawings are child-friendly but realistic, making it easy to process, and accurately creates a visual narrative of the written words. The language is also suitable for the intended demographic and, although three-year-olds may not be able to read it themselves, they will certainly understand the story.
From a design point of view, the text and illustrations do not quite match up. The full-page artworks make it difficult to place the short sentences in a way that both elements can work together. This, however, is not the fault of the author/illustrator who would have originally been working with a German text.
Overall,<i> Where Are You Hiding, God?</i> is a sweet, short story that can be read to children or grandchildren over and over again. As well as being a source of entertainment, it introduces them to the beliefs they will encounter during their Christian upbringing and prepares them to develop a greater understanding of God.
Ross (3284 KP) rated The Court of Broken Knives in Books
Aug 7, 2018
Finally, well executed, gritty literary fantasy
I had skimmed some reviews of this book after seeing glowing recommendations of it in different facebook groups. I was warned the tone of the narrative was off-putting and very different to the genre. I have read a few authors who try and put a more literary, almost poetic slant on the narrative in fantasy books and I always found it a bit flowery and took me out of the story.
Not so here. I'll admit the tone took me a couple of chapters to get to grips with, but I am so glad I stuck with it. The lyrical poetry contained within the narrative is so good that it adds to the story being told, it puts some emotion into the storytelling, something that is so sorely lacking from many books in third-person narrative.
Descriptions of people, places, feelings, events take on a whole new level of tangibility so rarely felt in fantasy fiction (without going down the Stephen King route of describing everything, and avoiding the Robert Jordan horse/riding dress description pratfalls).
The only place this becomes an issue is at times in the action scenes. On occasion I had to re-read a passage to work out what had actually happened - while I enjoyed the words I had struggled to pick up on what had occurred.
The story itself is not overly elaborate and unfolds before you with little warning. It felt like a natural, flowing journey than a series of events loosely tied together. We have the gritty mercenary company en route to unleash hell on the Empire, the great priestess of the God of living and dying (who has to sacrifice someone every few days to ensure life and death continue to operate properly) and we have the political manoeuvrings of the high lords within the Empirical council. This is all weaved together in the first third of the book to an excellent, surprising conclusion (in what many authors would have filled a whole book with ad nauseum), with the remainder of the book being a journey through wild country while everyone double-crosses everyone else.
This is of the grim-dark sub-genre, which basically means everyone is a bit of a shit, and bad things happen to nice people. There are no heroes here. There are characters you come to rout for (or despise) but you know it is wrong to do so as they are all so nasty and flawed in so many ways, like humanity itself.
Don't be expecting a happy ending!
Not so here. I'll admit the tone took me a couple of chapters to get to grips with, but I am so glad I stuck with it. The lyrical poetry contained within the narrative is so good that it adds to the story being told, it puts some emotion into the storytelling, something that is so sorely lacking from many books in third-person narrative.
Descriptions of people, places, feelings, events take on a whole new level of tangibility so rarely felt in fantasy fiction (without going down the Stephen King route of describing everything, and avoiding the Robert Jordan horse/riding dress description pratfalls).
The only place this becomes an issue is at times in the action scenes. On occasion I had to re-read a passage to work out what had actually happened - while I enjoyed the words I had struggled to pick up on what had occurred.
The story itself is not overly elaborate and unfolds before you with little warning. It felt like a natural, flowing journey than a series of events loosely tied together. We have the gritty mercenary company en route to unleash hell on the Empire, the great priestess of the God of living and dying (who has to sacrifice someone every few days to ensure life and death continue to operate properly) and we have the political manoeuvrings of the high lords within the Empirical council. This is all weaved together in the first third of the book to an excellent, surprising conclusion (in what many authors would have filled a whole book with ad nauseum), with the remainder of the book being a journey through wild country while everyone double-crosses everyone else.
This is of the grim-dark sub-genre, which basically means everyone is a bit of a shit, and bad things happen to nice people. There are no heroes here. There are characters you come to rout for (or despise) but you know it is wrong to do so as they are all so nasty and flawed in so many ways, like humanity itself.
Don't be expecting a happy ending!
Larry Eisner (2082 KP) rated Loot Time Podcast in Podcasts
Oct 3, 2018
Fun hosts (2 more)
Silly discussion
Great pop culture knowledge
Too long for the format (1 more)
Tries to stretch instead of editing for quality
It’s a decent podcast!
I’m being overly critical here but recognize I still give this a solid 7/10.
This podcast is well crafted from an audio quality standpoint and from a “love of the game” style genuine feeling you get from the hosts. They really love pop culture discussion and it shines through.
They are comfortable with the banter and that’s not easy to make happen, especially within just 25 episodes (when I listened).
My criticism here is a matter of what plagues great intentioned media everywhere. Everyone and everything benefits from a great editor. Now, I’m not talking about topic censure or quality of audio or what other editors of podcasts sometimes do. I’m strictly speaking of editing for content coherency and poignancy.
These guys love to talk pop culture but as any conversation with people who are passionate, they have conversations that seem less interesting if you’re not on the same page. There’s a ton of great content and a lot of boring non-essential content. The non-essential content is usually what defines a conversation-style podcast, because it’s the character of the show. However a lot of times it seems the hosts are stretching for filler. Trying to make the topic of the box more relevant or simply going on a tangent to simply fill tape.
And that is where an editor comes in. I think this could be a FANTASTIC half hour show. But with the dryness of the reaching to stay on topic versus the naturally on-topic stuff, an hour is just too much.
Again, I’m being harsh. I get it. But I think this has a ton of potential. It’s a great idea, and it’s got hosts who are genuinely fun to listen to when they’re jazzed about whatever topic they are on. But when they’re trying too hard to make you love they way they love, it’s too forced. (Loved the Evil Dead stuff, hated the gremlins on VHS stuff as one example).
Enthusiast media is great because it creates a shared space for fans to converge. You don’t have to sell us. We are on board already! So just have fun with it, don’t try to create topics, just run with it. And have someone ready to cut the audio into something more manageable to keep the sweet stuff, and trim the fat!
7/10
This podcast is well crafted from an audio quality standpoint and from a “love of the game” style genuine feeling you get from the hosts. They really love pop culture discussion and it shines through.
They are comfortable with the banter and that’s not easy to make happen, especially within just 25 episodes (when I listened).
My criticism here is a matter of what plagues great intentioned media everywhere. Everyone and everything benefits from a great editor. Now, I’m not talking about topic censure or quality of audio or what other editors of podcasts sometimes do. I’m strictly speaking of editing for content coherency and poignancy.
These guys love to talk pop culture but as any conversation with people who are passionate, they have conversations that seem less interesting if you’re not on the same page. There’s a ton of great content and a lot of boring non-essential content. The non-essential content is usually what defines a conversation-style podcast, because it’s the character of the show. However a lot of times it seems the hosts are stretching for filler. Trying to make the topic of the box more relevant or simply going on a tangent to simply fill tape.
And that is where an editor comes in. I think this could be a FANTASTIC half hour show. But with the dryness of the reaching to stay on topic versus the naturally on-topic stuff, an hour is just too much.
Again, I’m being harsh. I get it. But I think this has a ton of potential. It’s a great idea, and it’s got hosts who are genuinely fun to listen to when they’re jazzed about whatever topic they are on. But when they’re trying too hard to make you love they way they love, it’s too forced. (Loved the Evil Dead stuff, hated the gremlins on VHS stuff as one example).
Enthusiast media is great because it creates a shared space for fans to converge. You don’t have to sell us. We are on board already! So just have fun with it, don’t try to create topics, just run with it. And have someone ready to cut the audio into something more manageable to keep the sweet stuff, and trim the fat!
7/10
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 300: Rise of an Empire (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Seven years have passed since Frank Miller’s classic Graphic Novel 300 was adapted into a hit film and made a star of the largely unknown Gerard Butler.
The follow up film, “300 Rise of an Empire” is both a sequel and a prequel to the original film as it takes place before and after the events of the first film and involves Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton), a general from Athens who is tasked with defeating the invading Persian navy with only a handful of soldiers and ships who years earlier at the Battle of Marathon put the events of the two films in motion with his actions on the battlefield.
The film also chronicles the rise of the mortal turned god Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his brutal right hand Artemesia (Eva Green), who plays a deadly game against the Greeks and Themistocles based on a long standing desire for revenge against the Greeks despite being Greek herself.
While the film is slow getting started as there is a lot of back story and character introductions to chronicle, the film does start off nicely with the bloody battle of Marathon and then sets up several battles along the way.
Lena Headey is the only returning character of note aside from Xeres and she does a good job in her limited time as the Queen of Sparta who must make hard decisions for her people.
The film uses the same graphical style of the previous film and while there is tons of blood and splatter, it is done with CGI and this helps diminish the impact of seeing copious amounts of blood and gore flying through the air during the numerous battles.
The 3D in the film is effective and seeing the embers from the fires float around was a nice touch.
The cast was engaging and entertaining despite being largely unknown and Stapleton does a nice job with the lead as he does not try to recreate the performance of Butler and instead focuses on his own character.
While it plays out largely like it is, a film version of a comic, Zack Snyder who produced the film and wrote the screenplay has done a good job with the source material. Director Noam Murro keeps the action flowing and gives a nice mix of visuals and character to overcome some of the issues with plot and pacing.
In the end, the film is an enjoyable action film and a worthy follow up to the original which sets the stage well for future films.
http://sknr.net/2014/03/07/300-rise-of-an-empire/
The follow up film, “300 Rise of an Empire” is both a sequel and a prequel to the original film as it takes place before and after the events of the first film and involves Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton), a general from Athens who is tasked with defeating the invading Persian navy with only a handful of soldiers and ships who years earlier at the Battle of Marathon put the events of the two films in motion with his actions on the battlefield.
The film also chronicles the rise of the mortal turned god Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his brutal right hand Artemesia (Eva Green), who plays a deadly game against the Greeks and Themistocles based on a long standing desire for revenge against the Greeks despite being Greek herself.
While the film is slow getting started as there is a lot of back story and character introductions to chronicle, the film does start off nicely with the bloody battle of Marathon and then sets up several battles along the way.
Lena Headey is the only returning character of note aside from Xeres and she does a good job in her limited time as the Queen of Sparta who must make hard decisions for her people.
The film uses the same graphical style of the previous film and while there is tons of blood and splatter, it is done with CGI and this helps diminish the impact of seeing copious amounts of blood and gore flying through the air during the numerous battles.
The 3D in the film is effective and seeing the embers from the fires float around was a nice touch.
The cast was engaging and entertaining despite being largely unknown and Stapleton does a nice job with the lead as he does not try to recreate the performance of Butler and instead focuses on his own character.
While it plays out largely like it is, a film version of a comic, Zack Snyder who produced the film and wrote the screenplay has done a good job with the source material. Director Noam Murro keeps the action flowing and gives a nice mix of visuals and character to overcome some of the issues with plot and pacing.
In the end, the film is an enjoyable action film and a worthy follow up to the original which sets the stage well for future films.
http://sknr.net/2014/03/07/300-rise-of-an-empire/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Hangover Part III (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When “The Hangover” came out in 2009 it did so with modest expectations. Few critics expected it to become a box office smash much less the highest grossing R rated comedy of its time. Naturally a sequel followed and despite mixed reviews, “The Hangover 2” reaped in millions and vaulted over the original in terms of earnings. So, it was no surprise when “The Hangover 3” was announced and that the cast and writer/director Todd Phillips would be back again for the further adventures of The Wolfpack.
The films starts with dysfunctional Alan (Zach Galifianakis), creating a spectacular mess and being his usual spoiled and oblivious self though the consequences which have tragic ramifications. His friends Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Doug (Justin Bartha), decide that an intervention is needed and convince a reluctant Alan to get some help from a clinic in Arizona.
En route, the group is run off the road which results in Doug being held hostage by a criminal (John Goodman) who wants to use the group to bring in insane criminal Leslie Chow (ken Jeong). The group is told they have three days to find Chow and save Doug. It turns out Alan is the only one to have any contact with Chow since he was incarcerated. The guys soon find themselves in Tijuana hatching a desperate attempt to capture and return the demented Chow.
Naturally things do not go as planned and despite their best intentions the group only makes matters worse and sets a chain of events into action which bring them full circle in a race against time to save Doug.
This time out the film has ramped down the gross out humor of the first films aside for one epic scene following the credits. The film has some chuckles along the way but lacks the jaw dropping shock humor that defined the previous films. I spent the majority of the film enjoying the cast but waiting for the big comedic payoff to arrive which sadly did not come until the after-credits scene.
The cast works well with the material but it does seem like they have run out of ideas and are going through the motions. The addition of Melissa McCarthy does add some nice moments to the film and does leave open some ideas should they decide to continue the series despite promising that this is the conclusion. In the end it is a nice enough diversion but for me was neither as enjoyable nor memorable as the previous efforts.
http://sknr.net/2013/05/24/the-hangover-iii/
The films starts with dysfunctional Alan (Zach Galifianakis), creating a spectacular mess and being his usual spoiled and oblivious self though the consequences which have tragic ramifications. His friends Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Doug (Justin Bartha), decide that an intervention is needed and convince a reluctant Alan to get some help from a clinic in Arizona.
En route, the group is run off the road which results in Doug being held hostage by a criminal (John Goodman) who wants to use the group to bring in insane criminal Leslie Chow (ken Jeong). The group is told they have three days to find Chow and save Doug. It turns out Alan is the only one to have any contact with Chow since he was incarcerated. The guys soon find themselves in Tijuana hatching a desperate attempt to capture and return the demented Chow.
Naturally things do not go as planned and despite their best intentions the group only makes matters worse and sets a chain of events into action which bring them full circle in a race against time to save Doug.
This time out the film has ramped down the gross out humor of the first films aside for one epic scene following the credits. The film has some chuckles along the way but lacks the jaw dropping shock humor that defined the previous films. I spent the majority of the film enjoying the cast but waiting for the big comedic payoff to arrive which sadly did not come until the after-credits scene.
The cast works well with the material but it does seem like they have run out of ideas and are going through the motions. The addition of Melissa McCarthy does add some nice moments to the film and does leave open some ideas should they decide to continue the series despite promising that this is the conclusion. In the end it is a nice enough diversion but for me was neither as enjoyable nor memorable as the previous efforts.
http://sknr.net/2013/05/24/the-hangover-iii/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1922 (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 1922 starts as Wilfred James (Jane) is about to lose part of his property to his wife Arlette (Parker), Wilfred doesn’t want to lose the farmland he has raised his son Henry (Schmid) on and wants to come up with a way to keep all the land.
Wilfred’s plan is to get his son to help him murder Arlette, to get the financial gain of taking ownership of the property. The guilt of what he did only ends up driving Wilfred crazy here as the mental state start to unfold.
Thoughts on 1922
Characters – Wilfred is a farmer and father that doesn’t want to leave his farm, he designs a plan to get that as he looks to stay but soon his mind starts slipping into insanity. Arlette is the wife that wants to move away but has to overcome the husband’s decision not to, only to find herself murdered and visiting him in ghost form. Henry is the son that helps with the cover up, but soon goes out on his own to learn the harsh reality of the world.
Performances – Thomas Jane does give us a good performance in this film, but the rest of the cast are just ok, none of the performances drag us into the film in any way to see where it will end up going.
Story – The story was hard to follow, I think the idea is that one man loses everything because of killing his wife, the problem is that this is an incredibly slow-moving film that doesn’t seem to go very far or have any redeemable qualities. Is gets caught in the middle of a breakdown and a supernatural movie without being set on one that could make either feel stronger.
Crime/Horror/Mystery – There was a crime as it leads to a cover up of a murder which leads to the horror involved in the story as the past comes to haunt Wilfred.
Settings – The settings do fit the time in question which is fine but nothing stands out as the best of the best.
Special Effects – The effects are good when used but the film doesn’t just turn to effects to make things happen.
Scene of the Movie – Final Scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It was so so so so slow.
Final Thoughts – Well this is one of the dullest movies of the year, it has nothing happening for the most part and for a Stephen King spin it only disappoints.
Overall: Boring is being polite.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/10/24/1922-2017/
Wilfred’s plan is to get his son to help him murder Arlette, to get the financial gain of taking ownership of the property. The guilt of what he did only ends up driving Wilfred crazy here as the mental state start to unfold.
Thoughts on 1922
Characters – Wilfred is a farmer and father that doesn’t want to leave his farm, he designs a plan to get that as he looks to stay but soon his mind starts slipping into insanity. Arlette is the wife that wants to move away but has to overcome the husband’s decision not to, only to find herself murdered and visiting him in ghost form. Henry is the son that helps with the cover up, but soon goes out on his own to learn the harsh reality of the world.
Performances – Thomas Jane does give us a good performance in this film, but the rest of the cast are just ok, none of the performances drag us into the film in any way to see where it will end up going.
Story – The story was hard to follow, I think the idea is that one man loses everything because of killing his wife, the problem is that this is an incredibly slow-moving film that doesn’t seem to go very far or have any redeemable qualities. Is gets caught in the middle of a breakdown and a supernatural movie without being set on one that could make either feel stronger.
Crime/Horror/Mystery – There was a crime as it leads to a cover up of a murder which leads to the horror involved in the story as the past comes to haunt Wilfred.
Settings – The settings do fit the time in question which is fine but nothing stands out as the best of the best.
Special Effects – The effects are good when used but the film doesn’t just turn to effects to make things happen.
Scene of the Movie – Final Scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It was so so so so slow.
Final Thoughts – Well this is one of the dullest movies of the year, it has nothing happening for the most part and for a Stephen King spin it only disappoints.
Overall: Boring is being polite.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/10/24/1922-2017/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Within (2016) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Characters – John is the father of the house, we know he has been on hard times and this house is all he can afford for his family. He does love both his wife and daughter and is trying to teach his daughter a lesson after her mistakes have led them to this location. Hannah is his daughter of John that has been getting herself in trouble which caused the move, she is grounded and is the first one to notice the strange events around the house. Melanie is the new wife and step-mother to Hannah, she doesn’t do much beyond the normal, which is mostly trying to be the best friend in her time of need. Ray is the creepy neighbour that offers to help change the locks, less we say about him the better.
Performances – When we look at the performances in this film we must be praising Erin Moriarty as she is excellent in her role, the weaknesses come from the parental characters, Michael Vartan and Nadine Velazquez who both don’t seem to do much with their roles in the film.
Story – The story here follows the family that move into a new home only to start seeing strange things happening and we fall in the, ‘creepy person living in the attic’ sub-genre, which is one that I feel is getting tiresome, there is only so much you can do while telling this story and if we are being honest we have seen it done on better levels before. The build up follows the checklist and by the end of the film the story just feels like it is trying to hard to be different, rather than good.
Horror – The horror in the film comes from the idea that someone could be living in your house, it is an easy idea for because being haunted in your own home should be working, though this misses the tension required for the film.
Settings – The film is set entirely inside the one house, which is all we need as this keeps the film contained for the maximum levels of horror, even if they don’t use it well.
Special Effects – The effects for the most part are good with the kills looking extra brutal when they hit.
Scene of the Movie – The first meeting of David.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We have seen this too much.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the books horror that doesn’t test the audience enough, it has an easy out which doesn’t get used at all, though the killer does look creepy throughout.
Overall: Been here seen this.
Performances – When we look at the performances in this film we must be praising Erin Moriarty as she is excellent in her role, the weaknesses come from the parental characters, Michael Vartan and Nadine Velazquez who both don’t seem to do much with their roles in the film.
Story – The story here follows the family that move into a new home only to start seeing strange things happening and we fall in the, ‘creepy person living in the attic’ sub-genre, which is one that I feel is getting tiresome, there is only so much you can do while telling this story and if we are being honest we have seen it done on better levels before. The build up follows the checklist and by the end of the film the story just feels like it is trying to hard to be different, rather than good.
Horror – The horror in the film comes from the idea that someone could be living in your house, it is an easy idea for because being haunted in your own home should be working, though this misses the tension required for the film.
Settings – The film is set entirely inside the one house, which is all we need as this keeps the film contained for the maximum levels of horror, even if they don’t use it well.
Special Effects – The effects for the most part are good with the kills looking extra brutal when they hit.
Scene of the Movie – The first meeting of David.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We have seen this too much.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the books horror that doesn’t test the audience enough, it has an easy out which doesn’t get used at all, though the killer does look creepy throughout.
Overall: Been here seen this.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999) in Movies
Nov 8, 2019
I genuinely find The Phantom Menace really hard to review.
I was 11 years old when it came out in cinemas, and I of course absolutely loved it, and I did for a good few years.
As I grew older, it became apparent that the original Star Wars trilogy was a set of films that truly stood the test of time, a statement that doesn't hold true to the prequel films, but when I look back on Episode I in particular, it's a huge part of the Star Wars that I grew up with, so I really can't hate on it too aggressively!
Episode 1 is undeniably geared towards a younger audience. It has a pretty basic script, colourful characters, low brow humour, and is dripping with CGI. This direction is a huge part of it's downfall, with infamous characters like Jar Jar Binks being a big source of fan contempt. Likewise, young Anakin Skywalker was also not received well by a lot of fans, a character geared towards the young audience TPM is aimed at, and so unbelievably far away from the iconic villain he will eventually become.
A big part of Episode I that I personally dislike is the need to give a backstory to everything. An example of this is the scientific explanation behind The Force, taking away the mystical side of it. (I'm also not a huge fan of C3-PO being built by a pre-adolescent Darth Vader, but here we are)
The above mentioned CGI is completely overloaded. It's aged pretty badly when it comes to characters like the Gungans, and is a far cry from the practical effects and sets of the original trilogy.
Saying all this though, there is still a load of stuff I love about TPM, and I don't care what you think...
Ewan McGregor is great casting as a young Obi-Wan Kenobi, and is the beating heart of this whole trilogy.
I also like Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon.
It gets a lot of flack, but I love the pod race scene (sue me) and then of course, Darth Maul. No backstory is given here, just a badass Sith Lord with a dual ended lightsaber, and that's all we need to know.
The Phantom Menace, isn't the most gracious start to the chronological Star Wars story, but it still has an odd sort of charm and it's certainly not the worst Star Wars film out there.
To be honest, I lost count a long time ago in regards to how many times I've seen it, and dammit, I'll watch it again 🖕
I was 11 years old when it came out in cinemas, and I of course absolutely loved it, and I did for a good few years.
As I grew older, it became apparent that the original Star Wars trilogy was a set of films that truly stood the test of time, a statement that doesn't hold true to the prequel films, but when I look back on Episode I in particular, it's a huge part of the Star Wars that I grew up with, so I really can't hate on it too aggressively!
Episode 1 is undeniably geared towards a younger audience. It has a pretty basic script, colourful characters, low brow humour, and is dripping with CGI. This direction is a huge part of it's downfall, with infamous characters like Jar Jar Binks being a big source of fan contempt. Likewise, young Anakin Skywalker was also not received well by a lot of fans, a character geared towards the young audience TPM is aimed at, and so unbelievably far away from the iconic villain he will eventually become.
A big part of Episode I that I personally dislike is the need to give a backstory to everything. An example of this is the scientific explanation behind The Force, taking away the mystical side of it. (I'm also not a huge fan of C3-PO being built by a pre-adolescent Darth Vader, but here we are)
The above mentioned CGI is completely overloaded. It's aged pretty badly when it comes to characters like the Gungans, and is a far cry from the practical effects and sets of the original trilogy.
Saying all this though, there is still a load of stuff I love about TPM, and I don't care what you think...
Ewan McGregor is great casting as a young Obi-Wan Kenobi, and is the beating heart of this whole trilogy.
I also like Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon.
It gets a lot of flack, but I love the pod race scene (sue me) and then of course, Darth Maul. No backstory is given here, just a badass Sith Lord with a dual ended lightsaber, and that's all we need to know.
The Phantom Menace, isn't the most gracious start to the chronological Star Wars story, but it still has an odd sort of charm and it's certainly not the worst Star Wars film out there.
To be honest, I lost count a long time ago in regards to how many times I've seen it, and dammit, I'll watch it again 🖕