A good conclusion to the series IMO. Interesting character development too. If you like a bit of vampire-whooping action, I recommend it.
Castlevania: Nocturne S1
It seemed to start off like a generic sequel series set in a different age and different characters, but it developed in some interesting ways. IMO it's intentionally topical as well. S1 is not a complete story much like Castlevania S1 wasn't. I look forward to S2.
yes in fact thats exactly what i was referring to; people who writs shit like "G*d".
And i am totally going to judge them.
They do this because of a misinterpretation of "thou shalt not take My name in vain".
First off, the meaning of this commandment is to not go around telling people like "god told me to" or "god wants you to" or even "i swear to god". It does not mean that you cant say or write "god".
second, and *very* important, the name of god isn't god; it's Yahweh. And even then that's not god's name, because in the various magic-like texts of christojudian mythology, having a name implies that you were created by someone, and knowing an entity's real name grants you powers over them. Yahweh just means "he who is" implying god has no name, because of what above.
Just goes to prove that verbatim belief in scripture is exclusively the domain of idiots. Not even the early christian founders believed that scripture was factual.
That's news to me. I figured it was some sort of way to show reverence and respect. I grew up in an Evangelical household and don't recall being taught anything about writing or not writing God, so I've only seen it online.
Cute, gorey-sh retelling of the 1958 original (starring Steve McQueen), a well made fun horror film with some well-paced gore kills, classic 1980s style. Sadly, no boobies.
Same exact plot, but better special effects. Competently made in all other aspects.
It's really just worth it as a well known film but on its own it's not really, you know, *great*. If i was to recommend a similar film, i'd probably go for Brain Damage (1988), or the excellent Street Trash (1987).
Yeah come on, MAYBE 7/10 if you've never seen it and you're having a popcorn party. And what's up with the no-boobies? Horror films need boobies.
Finished Sugar last week, on AppleTV. Overall solid show. Definitely like a 7 out of 10. Colin Farrell kills it as usual. He is such a great actor and chooses some interesting roles.
Bodkin - Netflix. A dark irish comedy. This is a fun but still pretty smart show. I got pretty into it and was hoping the ending would not kill it. It's a corny ending but also with the summations, a great story about ourselves and our stories, so it came together well. I found out after watching six of the seven episodes, that it was a show produced by the Obama's, as a result of their production deal with Netflix some years back. No wonder it was smart.
in glorious 4k. Has John Carpenter even done a film that isn't good? (by which i mean, pretending that Ghosts Of Mars and Escape From LA do not exist, ofc)
You already know the plot. What i find surprising is the quality of the acting of Roddy Piper, who had very little film experience (aside from a comedy with The Fonz and a scifi B movie), and the chemistry between him and co-protagonist Keith David (the black dude). Everybody remember the character of Nada (Piper) for being a hulk-smash guy who kicks ass, but for half ot the film he's just a guy looking for work and a quiet life, which Piper portrays very convincingly.
The story flows fast and covers all the bases to set up a believable alien-invasion scenario, leading to the final objective and conclusion. I always found the end to be weak, more because of the way it's filmed rather than the way it was written - the attack on the broadcasting station fits with the narrative. But overall the way the film removes layer by layer of normality to plunge the protagonist into this horror scifi scenario is brilliant - you start with a film that feels like the beginning of First Blood, and before you know it you're shooting aliens.
And the alleyway fight scene is a classic worthy of the runtime on its own.
And the "chew bubblegum" scene is now a undeletable piece of culture.
1. massive cast-dump. Aaron Eckhart (Two-Face guy) as the lead, JK Simmons, Sam Elliot, Maria Bello, Rob Lowe, Adam Brody, Robert Duvall, Katie Holmes etc.
2. fairly limited scope of plot. Nick Naylor (twoface) is a spin doctor for big tobacco. He does a lot of spin. He comes up with very clever arguments. He "owns the libs" a lot. That's it, that's your 90 minutes.
3. obviously well produced; lots of head shots. lots of pretty good dialogue, competently delivered.
It's not as good as, idk, Charlie Wilson's War, or The Trial Of The Chicago 7, or even The Caine Mutiny Court-Marshall, but it's watchable. It need a little more oomph, it needs to take more risks, to change, to have a bit of unbalance, which it doesn't.
Sort of a love letter to the profession of stunt people.
What's good:
You get some superficial insight into the dangers of doing stunts. But the genre of the movie prevents it from being serious enough to treat the subject matter with sufficient depth and justice.
There are scenes worth seeing (like the trippin' fight scene)
Overall cinematography is decent
MetalStorm trailer at the end ain't bad. Needs to be made into a movie!
End credits scenes
What's not good:
I do not like any of the cast, other than Teresa Palmer but her character is almost meaningless.
Ryan Reynolds should've been offered this role and curse him if he was and he turned it down. Curse the studio if he was busy and the studio couldn't wait.
This DOES NOT work as a comedy, nor are the two protagonists worth their salt in doing comedies. Attractive, pretty, handsome yes but they are not suited for comedies.
The antagonists are BORING, even though one has a really chiseled body. One dimensional characters whose evil actions don't make much sense outside of lunacy but the characters aren't convincingly lunatic enough.
I could find other things wrong with the movie but then no one is paying me to write this negative review. (And no, you won't pay me what I want even if you DID want to pay )
I grew up with TOS so I went into watching this with equal parts hope, and anxiety that they might screw the pooch.
I really enjoyed it. In many ways it was far better than TOS largely because there was a single plot running throughout the series rather than a 'villain of the week'.
A few niggles:
Artwork - what's with male characters' lips in this, it's like the artist drew pale pink thick lines and called it a day. It looks unfinished in this minor respect.
Rogue's voice was like a so-so impression of TOS Rogue's voice with a dash of helium IMO.
Two plot lines that weren't fleshed out IMO/AFAIK:
Prof X both went on a honeymoon and got killed simultaneously?
Operation Zero Tolerance - I felt like this wasn't fully explained, was there conspiracy in the UN or not.
Accepting the fact that it's a Ryan Gosling romantic comedy and there is not a single second of seriousness in the film. Think of it as a non-superhero version of Deadpool, same kind of humour, same kind of jokes, but for being a dumb 'murican movie, the production is excellent.
Emily Blunt was horrid. She always is, i don't know why she's got such a good reputation as an actress, the only film worthy of notice starring her is Sicario and she plays a fish out of water :/
Same director as Bullet Train and very, very similar in style, but lacking the talents of Brad Pitt and of the Aaron Taylor-Johnson / Brian Tyree Henry duo. (ATJ is also in this film but in minimal capacity).
TBH it could have been better if it was re-written as a regular thriller. Plot spoiler tho.
Gosling is a stunt man. He's got a love story with a camera girl and then, at the very start of the film, he has a serious on-set accident. Winds up in the gutter.
Years later he's brought back by Evil Producer Woman on set, same douchy lead actor Gosling stunted for, and now camera girl is the budding director.
Gosling finds out that douchy lead star has committed a murder, and is framing him because they look similar. Gosling must escape his goons and show the world the proof of his innocence, using his Stunt Man Sk1lz!
Do it this way, but have less jokes and more of a serious, Three Days Of Condor mood.
But obviously none of that could be done in the cinema of today, so instead we have a light rom-com with 'splosions. Well, as far as light rom-coms with 'splosions go, this was pretty good. Think "Free Guy", but not shit.
hmm .. i'm gonna give it .. a 6.9/10 - hey, it's almost a 7 !
Accepting the fact that it's a Ryan Gosling romantic comedy and there is not a single second of seriousness in the film. Think of it as a non-superhero version of Deadpool, same kind of humour, same kind of jokes, but for being a dumb 'murican movie, the production is excellent.
Emily Blunt was horrid. She always is, i don't know why she's got such a good reputation as an actress, the only film worthy of notice starring her is Sicario and she plays a fish out of water :/
TBH it could have been better if it was re-written as a regular thriller.
Bladerunner 2049 - yes it's a bit too long and self indulgent at times, but it is so hypnotically atmospheric and the story so achingly beautiful that you just gotta go with it.
nah, it was not bad. The music was very well used and i'm a fool for a good use of I Was Made For Loving You. Jason Momoa was a nice touch in the very last few minutes, which is saying a lot, given how absolutely horrid of an "actor" he is. The photography was excellent throughout, and Gosling is still a very capable actor, for what he does. It may not be *my* kind of film, but it deserves a fair rating.
An Italian film, yes shot in English. Based on the works of Charles Bukowski, starring Ben Gazzara as Charles Serking, a poorly-obfuscated version of Bukowski, although the film isn't meant to be biographical in any sense. Serking is a dunk, and occasionally an artist, but far more of a destitute, unsucessfull drunk than an artist of any repute. He spends his time in 1970s L.A. chasing cheap sex thrills and being a generally shit human being. He has a brief thirst with street whore Cass (played by the absolutely gorgeous Ornella Muti), while at the same chasing or not chasing freedom and enlightenment. Aaaaand that's it. There's no real plot beside this. The whole film is this, he stumbles between one woman and the next, and then recites a poem.
While it's competently done for a 1980s art film, it's mostly interesting for historical reasons. The ENG version of Wikipedia isn't too helpful so i'll have to paste the ITA version, but the film won a shitload of stuff back then, even if the critics accused it of pornography, for all but maybe 3 instances of brief and fairly chaste nudity.
Eh ... i won't tell you to see it. Nothing to be gained, really. Not even that interesting as an art film. Those who praised it probably did so because Bukowski was still an underground artist and 1980s italo-french artists were big on finding art in counter-culture, because it makes us feel smart and superior.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.