Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Deviant rkm424Male/Unknown Recent Activity
Deviant for 3 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 31 Deviations 282 Comments 1,650 Pageviews

Newest Deviations

Activity


http://i.imgur.com/fGpeccz.jpg
**VERY MILD SPOILERS**
http://i.imgur.com/RtrqDES.jpg

Just when you think Hollywood are going to butcher another franchise with some unnecessary reboot or sequel, the execution of "Jurassic World" actually works well enough for it be watchable and possibly exceed expectations for those who had their doubts (I certainly had mine before entering the theatre). This can mainly be pinned down to the cast, starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ty Simpkins and Nick Robinson, whose characters are all (eventually) likable enough to want to follow their journey, especially Pratt, who was initially criticised for appearing too 'wooden' with his role when the first trailer made its way online. "Jurassic World" thankfully doesn't seem to take itself too seriously either, with a nice handful of jokes and light-hearted moments scattered throughout, mainly in the latter acts of the movie.

The film is dazzling, its vibrancy making it visually appealing to large audiences and also contributing to the fact that the film is not meant to be incredibly 'serious' (by alternatively employing a dark and washed out colour palette; a trope popular with 'rebooted' movies to imply a somber, grittier re-telling of a popular story). The CGI, which is definitely something of concern when involving the "Jurassic Park" franchise, can look incredible at times (the Mosasaurus being my favourite example) but is undeniably overdone, especially when the previous trilogy evinced that animatronics are a plausible alternative in the appropriate shots. The illusion of dinosaurs being real and tangible in this movie universe is sadly broken by the overwhelming use of CGI.

http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/jw-2-new.jpg

As a result, one of the major aspects missing from the film is the 'wow' factor that the previous movies instilled; dinosaur reveals just aren't exciting enough, especially when "Jurassic World" takes too long to even reveal the dinosaurs in the first place. Also disappointing is the fact that one of the first times we hear the grand and well-recognised "Jurassic Park" theme, composed by John Williams, is not for the dinosaur reveals but for a shot to establish the 'updated', modern theme park, glistening with standardisation and uniformity as it looks no different to any other immaculate holiday resort that we might expect, making the audience feel more 'amazed' by this 'modernised' park than the dinosaurs themselves.

However, this all ties in to the themes and comments made on society's present consumerist ways, the fact that we want 'bigger' and 'better', the whole reason for creating the hybrid dinosaurs in the first place; we have been so used to seeing the various dinosaurs in "Park"'s trilogy that the novelty has now worn off, hence the introduction of hybrid dinosaurs, a means to reel in a bigger audience and generate more excitement (and revenue).

The Indominus Rex, the result of hybrid experimentation, is an interesting concept to begin with but soon loses its novelty as the film progresses. This terrible lizard can be easily replaceable with a 'Spinosaurus' or any other large, intimidating carnivore, and subsequently produce no change in the latter half of the movie whatsoever.

https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/jurassic-park-dog-attack.jpg?w=650&h=391

"Jurassic World" makes it tempting to dose off in the first half of the film as it takes its time to introduce its attractions and dinosaurs, most of which were spoiled and revealed in the trailer anyway. After most of the plot devices and characters have been established, however, the movie finally grabs your attention and launches into the action, although more of an effort could have been made to create more suspense and tension as the stakes just never feel high enough, especially with the main characters, who hardly feel as if they're in danger.

Cutting right to the bone, "Jurassic World" is a solid film. While it isn't the most innovative out of the whole franchise and is sadly missing the 'wow' factor from its predecessors, it is entertaining enough and not too somber to appeal to and reel in wide audiences everywhere. Fans of the original "Jurassic Park" will also appreciate the many nods and easter eggs found throughout. I wouldn't particularly recommend "Jurassic World" but at the same time, I have no reason for deterring anyone to watch it at all.

6/10


http://i.imgur.com/RtrqDES.jpg


http://ib3.huluim.com/show_key_art/16127?size=1600x600&region=US
http://i.imgur.com/RtrqDES.jpg  
SPOILER-FREE

"Tokyo Magnitude 8.0" tells the story of two young kids, a brother and sister, surviving a post-apocalyptic world after the events of a catastrophic earthquake as they make a long journey home to be re-united with their family. Though it isn't the most creative and compelling story, it really is more about the 'journey' that these characters take and the people they meet along the way that makes the anime worth the watch.

Even with just 11 episodes in 1 exclusive season, some episodes simply come across filler material as certain elements become repetitive very fast due to the show's slightly slow pace. However, this is all forgiven when we reach the show's bittersweet climax and, without delving into spoiler territory, discover the surprises that the anime has in store, making you appreciate the time taken to reach the ending and, as previously mentioned, the journey taken to get there.

http://statici.behindthevoiceactors.com/behindthevoiceactors/_img/shows/banner_2361.jpg

Aided by the admirable story are the beautiful visuals, the art style being very reminiscent of Studio Ghibli productions. It is also worth mentioning the delicate score too, which is often serene and led by an elegant piano in the show's calmer moments, complimenting the animation and contributing to the show's overall bittersweet ambiance.

An English dub of the series does exist and though the entire voice cast is not superbly talented, the performances are definitely sufficient and convey the characters appropriately, especially Luci Christian whose performance of teenager Mirai Onozawa stands out amongst the rest and comes across impeccably from episode to episode.

http://www.sirenvisual.com.au/media/media/img/shortdescription/M8_s03_043.jpg

Whether you're new to anime or not, "Tokyo Magnitude 8.0" is definitely worth the watch and with just 1 short season, it gets to the point with a definitive ending. It's worth noting that there's a "condensed" version of the series which runs under just less than an hour but I would strongly recommend just watching through all 11 episodes and following the characters' journey in these tragic events from the very beginning to the very end.

"Tokyo Magnitude" appropriately gets an "8.0" for its simple yet effective storytelling and memorable characters.

8/10

http://i.imgur.com/RtrqDES.jpg
Breaking Bear by rkm424
Breaking Bear
The "Pink Teddy Bear" from AMC's 'Breaking Bad'.

I made this for a competition (but didn't win):
www.facebook.com/media/set/?se…

What you see above is simply a refined version of the original artwork I submitted.
Loading...

http://i.imgur.com/RtrqDES.jpg
SPOILER-FREE

Being new to the world of "Mad Max", I went in to the theatre with an open mind, only knowing to expect cars and explosions, which I briefly saw from snippets of trailers.

In the end, that's all I got, just explosions, cars, violence and no story whatsoever. Due to the fact that action sequences drag on for such an inexplicable amount of time, there's no room to breathe and incorporate morsels of a plot together. The 'plot' (if that's what you want to call it) and introduction to this world is so vague that it seems that the filmmakers just wanted to skim over the "unimportant" aspects of a film like a good plot and interesting characters and just get straight to the "high octane" action which QUICKLY loses its novelty and thrill. Good choice there, mates. This film is so bad that you can't even spoil it.


There's not much that I can praise about the film other than the nice (and insane) visuals; the use of vibrant blue and orange tones and the barren landscapes. It's difficult to even pick out anything good about the cast; Tom Hardy, who plays the titular character, has such a small role and just mumbles his way throughout the film, so unsure of himself. Speaking of mumbling, "Mad Max" is meant to be set in Australia yet there's an overwhelming earful of British and American accents, that are all painfully and conspicuously 'dubbed' in the ADR process of the movie (and even then, some of the dialogue is just unintelligible). Again, the focal point of the film seems to be the action sequences which go on for almost an hour straight, if I can remember correctly (though I don't want to remember anything about "Mad Max" at all).

Smaller aspects of the film are difficult to just gloss over and ignore, such as the fact that characters endure tough and dangerous road trips for days without food or water and still have the strength to fight, speak, stand, leap from car to car etc. This film is praised for its likely representation of a post-apocalyptic world yet there are just no tinges of realism to be found here.


It saddens me that audiences are responding to "Mad Max: Fury Road" so positively and enthusiastically, with a current 8.7 rating on IMDb and 98% score on Rotten Tomatoes (as of late May 2015). Are films so bad nowadays that the average moviegoer is just rendered completely susceptible and hypersensitive to mindless 'high-octane' action and plots that are barely held together by underdeveloped characters? For anyone serious about good-quality films, avoid "Mad Max" as best as you can, even if it means you have to drive far out into the Australian outback to isolate yourself from another one of Hollywood's 'finest'.

http://i.imgur.com/RtrqDES.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/RtrqDES.jpg
**SPOILERS**

I’m shocked that I have more negatives to bring up than positives, but with the direction that Marvel have been heading towards in terms of quality regarding their cinematic universe at the moment, I shouldn’t have really been that surprised.

The cast from Marvel Studios’ previous films have naturally returned to their respective roles but one of the major downfalls of "Age of Ultron" is that there is little to no development to these characters at all. Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), again, makes reference to the alien invasion from "The Avengers", as he did in "Iron Man 3", and his sudden return to his superhero career as Iron Man is never explained. Rogers (Evans) is an improvement but overall feels like he’s been copied and pasted from the first ensemble film whilst Thor (Hemsworth) is severely underused and has the most nonsensical subplot (that is meant to tie into Thor’s upcoming film…?) in "Age of Ultron”.

One of the best aspects of the film, however, is Jeremy Renner’s portrayal of Clint Barton, aka Hawkeye, whose character is greatly developed and, in comparison to the rest of our beloved Avengers, feels ‘genuine’; it’s easy to see why his character has always been left lingering in the background in previous Marvel movies but his particular situation in "Age of Ultron" has evoked him to open up to the rest of his team and to us, the audience, to subsequently obtain a better understanding of the character.



While Hawkeye’s character has been pushed a little more to the forefront, Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow seems to have taken a step back from the result of a very forced and poor romance 'blossoming' between her and Bruce Banner. Scarlett Johansson’s character has always seemed quite strong in previous Marvel films and the insight to her character via flashback sequences in "Age of Ultron" would have only reinforced that impression if it wasn’t for the fact that Black Widow was so desperate to get into the Hulk’s pants (especially when she told Banner she should have gotten in the shower with him *cringe*). Is it necessary for every comic-book movie to contain romance? With no previous chemistry existing between the two characters, the writers simply ticked their checkbox of including ‘romance' as they squeeze Black Widow and the Hulk together and expect something ‘magical’ to happen.

Although it is nice to see the cast come together again since their ensemble debut, the characters simply engage in very generic and repetitive conversation and are constantly turning on each other which soon becomes very tiring. We already witnessed enough of that in the first Avengers movie; there’s no need to show us more of the same thing. If you are aware of Marvel’s current movie plans and their ‘Phases', it is easy to piece together that this forced conflict within the group is all necessary buildup for the events of “Captain America: Civil War” and though this conflict will be accentuated in the 2016 movie, the teasing towards this event was just not subtle.

On a related note, Marvel is dabbling excessively in what I dislike the most about their attempt at creating a very ‘cohesive’ cinematic universe; their need to set up events that play out in the future. In itself, "Age of Ultron” is quite a solid movie with a definitive beginning, middle and ending. However, most of the bits in the ‘middle’ can be cut out, i.e. the need to introduce characters and locations (and "Age of Ultron" features MANY of these) that will have greater significance in future films. As mentioned previously, Civil War appears to be the prioritised chess piece in this movie. With this in mind, the film feels overstuffed with characters, hence why characters, overall, feel so underused and underdeveloped. Despite this, the cameo appearances from side characters at the beginning of the film is a nice acknowledgement to their presence in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and is later justified when we see the new roster for The Avengers at the film’s ending.



Introduced into the movie’s new roster of heroes are Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen), her twin brother Pietro Maximoff (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and the Vision (Paul Bettany), their presence definitely welcomed. The transition from antagonists to heroes feels natural on behalf of the Twins and the skill set/powers displayed by the three definitely feels like a nice, fresh change from the remaining members of the Avengers. While Olsen’s and Johnson’s performances are sufficient, it is worth noting that their Eastern-European accents are notably off at times. Paul Bettany as the Vision is definitely one of the film’s highlights but unfortunately just feels like another character that Marvel have attempted to shoehorn into their movie universe, making his presence and role feel underused.

Interestingly enough, these three new heroes, whom I would personally say take the spotlight in "Age of Ultron" (as well as Hawkeye, we definitely can’t forget Hawkeye in this film), become heroes in the first place due to their interaction or relation with Ultron, the titular villain. I’m not sure about you but if these characters are not sufficiently convinced by the villain to join them and subsequently just lead a robot army instead, it’s easy to see how flawed the villain’s motives are. Ultron is one of the biggest problems of this film. Do not let the trailers fool you into thinking that he is menacing because he simply isn’t (though kudos to him as he is one of the more ‘interesting' Marvel villains, I guess).

Again, because of the abundant amount of characters, it is so difficult to focus on a single character and that unfortunately includes the villain; we never get a full insight into what Ultron is truly capable of. He is alluded to having the ability to access any computer and do what he pleases (this is never explicitly shown to us in great detail, just told to the audience) yet the most he seems to accomplish is zip back and forth between his individual robots. What’s annoying is the fact that we don’t even get to see how the main body of Ultron himself is built as all that occurs off screen and he just magically appears as a freshly made entity whenever the film needs him to. The villain is also made to be too human in some aspects with his dialect and (facial) expressions and is composed as acting much too casual considering his ‘motives'; Ultron is simply is just all talk and no action.



Speaking of action, I’d rather we didn’t... "Man of Steel" quickly made viewers tired of seeing building after building being demolished and flying pieces of rubble and debris everywhere and so, to see this happen so often in the Avengers sequel is to experience something so tedious, exhausting, cliché and repetitive. Apart from an impressive and quite unexpected moment where Ultron’s drones take off with a truck from the ground, I had no aroused reaction at all to the action sequences. Characters may don slightly upgraded weapons and suits and may be pulling off some combo moves together but the choreography just isn’t striking enough as it was with “The Winter Soldier”.

Due to the bland action sequences, it never feels like the heroes are in any danger at all. There’s no tension to be anticipated at all and the stakes throughout "Age of Ultron" just never feel high enough. Sure, some villain galvanises the team of heroes to navigate through several different locations and stop him from destroying the planet before it’s too late but, I don’t know, I may or may not be experiencing some déjà vu… Marvel don’t seem to know how to amp up the stakes and tension; all they really seem to know is how to amp up the number of characters they can squeeze into a 2 hr and 20 minute movie. As mentioned above, the action sequences are all so generic (and all contain so much destruction) that it’s difficult to tell when we’ve reached some kind of pinnacle or climax where we can expect the film to really blow out, hence why the third act of “Age of Ultron” is just so underwhelming.



The capacity to introduce something fresh and innovative seems like a challenge for Marvel Studios at the moment. Loki’s sceptre is once again used as another plot device and is a necessary weapon for our titular villain as they’re simply not menacing or intimidating enough to not need it at all. Though it is nice to see that particular element return from “The Avengers”, where it worked very appropriately, its use as a ‘plot device’ in this sequel is very apparent and disappointing considering it is, yet again, another means for Marvel to tie together their cinematic universe and tease future plans through the reveal of the infinity stone hidden inside the sceptre (the stone later being used to generate the Vision). Thanos, who we were first introduced to in “The Avengers” and later see in “Guardians”, makes his third overall appearance in the MCU in the mid-credits scene, wearing the Infinity Gauntlet which is yet to bear any of the appropriate stones. It is difficult to come across a memorable and well-developed villain in the string of Marvel movies since 2008 and with the preparation towards Thanos most likely being the major villain in “The Avengers: Infinity War (Pts. 1 and 2)”, I really do hope that the build-up towards his character will not be yet another disappointment.

“The Avengers: Age of Ultron” is no improvement on Marvel Studios' former works and, sadly, just not even on the same standards. The film is simply overstuffed with mediocre gags, characters, repetitive dialogue, dull action and an underdeveloped villain with a generic army at their hands. As a result, there’s hardly a reaction to have towards “Age of Ultron” other than the feeling of being underwhelmed by how much a potentially good story and exciting villain  have been sacrificed at the expense of Marvel ticking off all the ‘essentials’ (i.e., ‘big' action, comedy, the teasing of future films, generic plot and villain) in order to please the average moviegoer. Apparently, a three hour cut of this film exists which I hope delivers a ‘fleshed’ out and well-balanced feature in comparison to the theatrical release. However, we won’t know for sure until the Avengers return on DVD and Blu-Ray. In the meantime, unless you are taking your kids to the cinema, save your money on tickets and rent the film later this year instead. There’s nothing to miss here. “Age of Ultron” is one of Marvel’s most forgettable movies to date.

4/10

http://i.imgur.com/RtrqDES.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/fGpeccz.jpg
**VERY MILD SPOILERS**
http://i.imgur.com/RtrqDES.jpg

Just when you think Hollywood are going to butcher another franchise with some unnecessary reboot or sequel, the execution of "Jurassic World" actually works well enough for it be watchable and possibly exceed expectations for those who had their doubts (I certainly had mine before entering the theatre). This can mainly be pinned down to the cast, starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ty Simpkins and Nick Robinson, whose characters are all (eventually) likable enough to want to follow their journey, especially Pratt, who was initially criticised for appearing too 'wooden' with his role when the first trailer made its way online. "Jurassic World" thankfully doesn't seem to take itself too seriously either, with a nice handful of jokes and light-hearted moments scattered throughout, mainly in the latter acts of the movie.

The film is dazzling, its vibrancy making it visually appealing to large audiences and also contributing to the fact that the film is not meant to be incredibly 'serious' (by alternatively employing a dark and washed out colour palette; a trope popular with 'rebooted' movies to imply a somber, grittier re-telling of a popular story). The CGI, which is definitely something of concern when involving the "Jurassic Park" franchise, can look incredible at times (the Mosasaurus being my favourite example) but is undeniably overdone, especially when the previous trilogy evinced that animatronics are a plausible alternative in the appropriate shots. The illusion of dinosaurs being real and tangible in this movie universe is sadly broken by the overwhelming use of CGI.

http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/jw-2-new.jpg

As a result, one of the major aspects missing from the film is the 'wow' factor that the previous movies instilled; dinosaur reveals just aren't exciting enough, especially when "Jurassic World" takes too long to even reveal the dinosaurs in the first place. Also disappointing is the fact that one of the first times we hear the grand and well-recognised "Jurassic Park" theme, composed by John Williams, is not for the dinosaur reveals but for a shot to establish the 'updated', modern theme park, glistening with standardisation and uniformity as it looks no different to any other immaculate holiday resort that we might expect, making the audience feel more 'amazed' by this 'modernised' park than the dinosaurs themselves.

However, this all ties in to the themes and comments made on society's present consumerist ways, the fact that we want 'bigger' and 'better', the whole reason for creating the hybrid dinosaurs in the first place; we have been so used to seeing the various dinosaurs in "Park"'s trilogy that the novelty has now worn off, hence the introduction of hybrid dinosaurs, a means to reel in a bigger audience and generate more excitement (and revenue).

The Indominus Rex, the result of hybrid experimentation, is an interesting concept to begin with but soon loses its novelty as the film progresses. This terrible lizard can be easily replaceable with a 'Spinosaurus' or any other large, intimidating carnivore, and subsequently produce no change in the latter half of the movie whatsoever.

https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/jurassic-park-dog-attack.jpg?w=650&h=391

"Jurassic World" makes it tempting to dose off in the first half of the film as it takes its time to introduce its attractions and dinosaurs, most of which were spoiled and revealed in the trailer anyway. After most of the plot devices and characters have been established, however, the movie finally grabs your attention and launches into the action, although more of an effort could have been made to create more suspense and tension as the stakes just never feel high enough, especially with the main characters, who hardly feel as if they're in danger.

Cutting right to the bone, "Jurassic World" is a solid film. While it isn't the most innovative out of the whole franchise and is sadly missing the 'wow' factor from its predecessors, it is entertaining enough and not too somber to appeal to and reel in wide audiences everywhere. Fans of the original "Jurassic Park" will also appreciate the many nods and easter eggs found throughout. I wouldn't particularly recommend "Jurassic World" but at the same time, I have no reason for deterring anyone to watch it at all.

6/10


http://i.imgur.com/RtrqDES.jpg


deviantID

rkm424's Profile Picture
Interests

AdCast - Ads from the Community

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconfuryian:
Furyian Featured By Owner Apr 20, 2015   Photographer
Thanks for adding "Do You Bl--" to your +fav s!!
Reply
:icontyrannedragon:
TyranneDragon Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Thanks for the fav bro! =D
Reply
:iconkcspaghetti:
kcspaghetti Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2015  Professional Digital Artist
:icongrin--plz: Thanks 4 the faves!
Reply
:icona-m-a-p:
A-M-A-P Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
May I kindly ask for your words on my latest piece but please be warned, you may find it rather disturbing, or not. I Am Trapped
I've also taken the liberty in faving some of your works. I also sent you a Llama and became a watcher :D
Wolf Uhh 
Reply
Add a Comment: