Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Layman of history, religion and mythology and someone who is always interested in learning new things.
Very passionate in my believes.
Hate intolerance or ignorance shown without the capacity to try and learn and lay to rest one's own ignorance's.
My movie preferences do show my geek side. I love escapism which is why I am more drawn to sci-fi and fantasy. Yet I also love an intelligent well thought out movie and even movies that tug on the heart strings so long as it is not done in a cheap way.
I loath historical inaccuracies in movies.
In private I have been known to shed a few tears during sad moments in movies,
The Road (2009)
A story about a man and his son.
Set some years after a worldwide cataclysm, the result of which is all the plant life and all the animals have died. And a world getting slowly colder, with little food left in the world and few humans left this is an incredibly bleak tale. A movie that has little hope in it and for the most part despair. Where most of the humans left have fallen into the worst state of depravity, not only committing cannibalism, but murder to achieve cannibalism.
And yet through all this bleakness the story focuses on a man and his boy travelling through this world, heading south to find the coast and where it might be warmer. And it is their struggle and journey through all this bleakness that shows the very best amongst humanity.
It is a touching tale of father and son struggling to survive and their relationship with one another that is very touching and endearing.
Throughout this you have some flashbacks to both times before the cataclysm with the man's wife. And after when it's the three of them together and the slowly falling into despair of the mother.
It deals with difficult subjects and their are some harrowing scenes, but I think these are needed and help contrast the good moments for the characters.
It shows the very best in humanity as well as the worst, with a boy born into this world who still sees the good in people when his father can only see and do what he thinks is best for his sons survival.
The post cataclysm world is shot with much of the colour drained from it. Sometimes it even appears as though it is shot in black and white. In contrast to this the pre cataclysm world focuses very much on vibrant colours, showing the beauty of a garden on a summers day.
Overall I think this is a very good movie that has you on a roller-coaster of emotions. It can be hard going at times but it is worth it for the rewards you get. Overall I give it 4 out of 5.
The Best of all King Arthur Movies
No other King Arthur movie has made an impression on me like Excalibur has. No other movie seems to capture the true magic and feeling of myth like this movie.
It captures the very essence of the legend we have come to love telling the story true.
Unfortunately those of a younger generation (bring 33 at the time of this review I do not consider myself that old myself) who are used to CGI laden and fast paced action may not like this movie. Some may say the acting is a little cheesy or hammy too. It could be taken that way, I would say it is more theatrical in nature which asks for big performances and if you take it as such, then you appreciate the performances all the more.
The action may not be on the level modern audiences are used to, however it still givers a good account of itself with plenty of battle scenes to keep you happy.
But the real meat of the film is its story. Excellently scripted with subtle and not so subtle devices used to tell the story it does not insult the viewers intelligence leaving the viewer to spot much of the little story devices that lead to later big story plots.
If I had anything I would change in the movie, it would be that Sir Gawain had a bigger role and was not just best known for challenging Sir Lancelot in the movie accusing him of desiring Guinivere. In the myths he is one of the finest and most noble of Knights, his own story with the green knight an excellent one. But I guess this would have diverted from the main story which is about Arthur himself.
It crams the story into the hour and 40 minutes well, and perhaps would have benefited from another half hour, but they rarely made movies that long back then and it still does a sterling job in the time it has.
Overall a great version of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round table. In my humble opinion no other versions come close to this, and I would be surprised if do in the future.
Blade: The Series: Pilot (2006)
Better than expected
When I heard about this series I was sceptical.
But I was pleasantly surprised.
I was never a big fan of the movies, I enjoyed them but never found them to be anything special. So I actually found I enjoyed the series more. Sure he does not plough through masses of vampires like in the movies. But to me this is a good thing. I far prefer to see hero who is challenged than one who finds everything too easy.
People say he does not seem to have much personality and put that down to the acting. I disagree. The character of Blade himself on the surface does not have much personality though it is there underneath and I feel they covered this well especially with the flashbacks to his childhood.
The supporting cast is a good one. I found myself enjoying the villains as much if not more than the good guys. Though I do think chen makes a good and witty sidekick.
It is refreshing to see a series which does not hold back. Blade is not for kids. It has unrestrained violence though in moderation which adds to an interesting story.
The plot is interesting and kept me wanting to see the next episode.
I think this will run for a good few series and I am surprised to find I like another Vampire series after my all time favourite Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
This is well worth watching.
War of the Worlds (2005)
H.G Wells is Spinning in his grave.
My predictions about this movie were correct. Not only did it barely follow the book at all so could not really be called War of the Worlds, as a sci-fi movie it in itself was just plain average, maybe even lower end average because it is forgettable. Good points first. Decent special effect. When the walker first comes out of the ground and starts killing people that is good. Quite good seeing more of them attacking places. But that is about all I can think off for good points, and trust me I did try hard to think of others. Onto the bad. The main character is annoying because he is a Pratt. He is like a teenager stuck in a 40 year old mans body, irresponsible, not knowing how to control his kids or even knowing important things about his kids like that his daughter is allergic to peanuts. The daughter is another of Speilbergs annoying useless scream types. Screams like mad, freaks out, even starts throwing a tantrum in the car that she wants her Mom even though she knows her Mom is miles away in another city and there is no way her Dad could suddenly make her appear. She is a weak plot hook for the main character to look after her which restricts this movie, but more on that later. The son ...stereotypical late teen son who hates his Dad for reasons unknown, insists on calling him Ray rather than Dad, is a general Pratt, sulky stubborn does silly things like steals his Dad's car. Yet he wants to go and join the army to fight the aliens even though he apparently loves his sister very much and she needs him and the army are getting their backsides well and truly kicked The pace of the movie was pretty awful. I know in the book lots of action first half and not so much second but still could have had it moving a bit better in the second half. The parts in the house avoiding the Alien probe was done too long. What was supposed to be suspenseful got tedious. This left things unsatisfying which meant as it came to the end of the movie you just wanted it over with, or at least wanted a bit of action to see the movie off. There was a bit of action to see the movie off but that was a bit dull too. Okay onto my biggest beef. Ever since I read the book, listened to the War of the Worlds Album I have wanted them to make a proper, authentic War of the Worlds movie set in late Victorian England as H.G. Well's imagined it. I don't care if some of it would seem strange to our minds now after watching so many sci-fi's going back would be a very interesting and imaginative form of cinema and it would be paying homage to the novel that started sci-fi as we know it off. Respect was needed. Spielberg showed none. He took the novel and mangled it. He scavenged from it some of its ideas and made a movie that is not particularly good from it. He went for what would appease the big directors in the film studios rather than take the brave and imaginative road. He also did not understand the fundamentals of the book. He ignored what drove the book and the messages. In the first half of the book there was still hope. Yes the martians were winning but humans were fighting bravely, slowing them down, even sometimes getting victory over them such as where the batteries of cannons took down a machine before the martians destroyed them. This even led to the most important part of the book. The part those who have read it know best. The part where you get goosebumps reading it. The Thunderchild ironclad standing between the Martian war machines and the ferry, not budging, protecting it. Being heroic and then swooping towards the war machines and destroying, one, two, three of them. Building all who watches hope they can win. Building the readers hope up they can be beaten before eventually the martians manage to bring it down and as the Thunder Child sinks into the water, the hope of all who watch and read sinks. humankind is defeated yet that brave acct of human spirit saved the ferry boat from its destruction and it got away. In this movie there was none of that. they got on a ferry, the martians overturned it and sank it. Just compare what could have been a great scene with so much emotion invested into it and instead Spielberg opted for a rather standard oh they are attacked and scramble to escape. Spielberg denies it but this is far more based on the 1950's movie than the book. Set in modern America not England is he so jingoistic that he cannot let another nation be the centre of things? Must it always be about America? The Alien warships have shields which means the humans cannot even penetrate them just like in the 50's movie. In the house the probe on the long arm comes in like in the 50's and when discovered he chips it off with an axe. He is protecting someone though in this it is his daughter rather than a woman. And that also bogs it down, in the novel he is alone which frees him up and means he encounters far more interesting things and people, this bogs him right down with a daughter, slows the movie pace down, which means interesting major characters are left out and other pale imitations of characters in the book are not done right nor do you see the process of them becoming the broken people they are. Having waited a long time for a proper version of this book to be made and it looks like I am to be kept waiting.
A true Epic. One of the greatest Sci-fi's
I know a lot of Dune fans do not like this. I consider myself a Dune fan. The books are my favourite science fiction books and I feel on a level with the Lord of the rings when it comes to literature.
I know it changes quite a few things and leaves quite a few important things out. However despite all this I feel this is a truly great movie and though not completely accurate it catches the spirit of the novel.
I have seen the television series made later and though that is more accurate to the book I feel it does not at all capture the spirit.
this movie captures that spirit and the epic scale of the book and also far more importantly the spirituality. I would take the movie over the series any day.
Whether a fan or not it is worth watching this movie. For those who have never read the Dune books or know much about them you will find this a wonderful piece of cinematography from the 1980's that was groundbreaking for it's time and may bring you interest in the novels. For those fans who have never seen it you will find an interesting take and I hope like me look fast the flaws in the story-line to see how the spirit of the novel was captured.
I saw this movie when I was just 7 back in 1984 and I have been fascinated by it since, even back in those times when I could not understand it at such a young age it enthralled me and it was certainly due to the movie that later on in adulthood I went on to read the novels and to this date I have read every one by Frank Herbert and by his son.
This movie was utterly awful.
It was historically inaccurate and portrayed the English as the Villains where as both countries in that time committed terrible acts.
One of the events which occurred was when the Scots raided an English town, murdering everyone including woman and children and making purses out of their flesh comes to mind, one of the events that caused the hostilities between the two countries.
Either the movie makers did not do their homework as to what went on in that period or they decided to purposely ignore and warp some of the events in order to make the English out as the Villains and the Scots as heroes.
It was due to this movie that I decided not to go and see the Patriot also by Mel Gibson as I knew they would do the same.